ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prisoner Rehabilitation Services

Lucy Allan: What his plans are for the future of rehabilitation services for prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Tomlinson: What his plans are for the future of rehabilitation services for prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Fabricant: What his plans are for the future of rehabilitation services for prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Lefroy: What his plans are for the future of rehabilitation services for prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Gove: May I begin by praising the work of my predecessor to improve the rehabilitation of offenders? Thanks to his reforming zeal, we have broadened the range of people providing and benefiting from rehabilitation, but there is still much more to do.

Lucy Allan: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and for the great work to support the rehabilitation of offenders to give them a second chance. Will he assure me that that rehabilitation will never be appropriate in cases such as the brutal murder of Telford teenager Georgia Williams?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. May I emphasise that, with heinous crimes such as the appalling murder of Georgia Williams, judges have the freedom to impose whole-life orders? One was imposed on the killer in that terrible case.

Michael Tomlinson: Clean Sheet and Footprints are two charities in Dorset supporting ex-offenders into work and reducing the risk of reoffending. What steps
	is my right hon. Friend taking to support such charities and to ensure that offenders leave prison ready to face the world of work?

Michael Gove: I commend my hon. Friend for raising the work of those two voluntary sector organisations. Without the work of voluntary and third sector organisations, we would not be able to provide the educational and rehabilitative services that enable people who are currently in our prisons to have a second chance.

Michael Fabricant: Not just voluntary services have a role to play, but private businesses such as Marks & Spencer, and indeed other well known department stores. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should encourage private enterprise to help in the rehabilitation of offenders to get them back to work?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree—that is a very good point. May I single out for praise the John Lewis Partnership, which does such a fantastic job in helping people from a variety of backgrounds to be all they can be? I stress that there are other organisations, such as Greggs the bakers and, of course, Timpson, the shoe and key repair firm. John Timpson’s leadership in providing ex-offenders with a second chance is exemplary.

Jeremy Lefroy: Given that 12% of the prison population are sex offenders, including many in the prison in Stafford, what specific rehabilitation work is being done for sex offenders?

Michael Gove: The excellent work that is done in Stafford prison is close to my hon. Friend’s heart, and he is absolutely right. We need to make use of the most sophisticated means that psychologists can devise to help people to tackle the problems that led them to offend. I had the opportunity earlier this week to talk to the psychologist in charge of that work at the National Offender Management Service, and to guarantee her all support in the weeks and months ahead in dealing with those terrible crimes.

Nick Smith: Lord Laming is inquiring into looked-after children and the criminal justice system. As well as rehabilitation, what is the Justice Secretary doing to help youngsters who have been in care to avoid a life in crime?

Michael Gove: I welcome Herbert Laming’s work. He has been an inspirational figure in social work. He is right to draw attention to the high number of male and particularly female offenders in our jails who spent their lives in care. Working with the Education Secretary and the Minister for Children and Families, who has responsibility for children in care, I hope we can work on the reforms of the coalition Government to ensure that more children in dysfunctional homes can be adopted and fostered quickly, and that there are better educational outcomes for children who have to spend their lives in care.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Does the Secretary of State agree that central to reducing crime rates overall is reducing the rate of reoffending? Does
	he therefore also agree that to cut rehabilitative services, and funding for them, ultimately would be counter- productive in the long term?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished barrister and historian and is absolutely right, because the historical record shows that, overall as a country, we have been very poor at reducing the rate of recidivism. We need to ensure that, both in our prisons and afterwards, we have high-quality services provided by professionals who know how to change the behaviour of individuals who deserve a second chance.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his recent appointment. He looked very impressive in his new robes, if I may say so.
	Thirty-five per cent. of prisoners have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction while in prison. What specific help is being given to those with a drug addiction when they come out of prison?

Michael Gove: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his re-election as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He did an exemplary job in the previous Parliament and I know he will do a very good job in this Parliament. May I also thank him for his kind words about my dress sense? When it comes to cutting a sartorial dash, there are few who can match him.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that drug addiction is one of the principal factors that lead individuals to commit crime. It is also the case that there is an unacceptable level of drug use, both of illegal drugs and so-called legal highs, in our prisons. We are determined to ensure that the psychological support currently available in prison, and the support rehabilitation companies can provide for individuals who are drug-addicted, is enhanced so that individuals can be weaned off a habit that brings misery to themselves and to their victims.

Joanna Cherry: Does the Secretary of State agree that an important part of rehabilitation is the nature of the custodial arrangements we make for our prisoners? He will have seen yesterday’s announcement by the Scottish Government on their plans to reform the custodial arrangements for female offenders in Scotland. Will he commit to considering a similar approach as he reforms the prison estate in England and Wales?

Michael Gove: Both our jurisdictions have a great deal to learn from one another. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for mentioning that, and for the very constructive tone she took in last week’s Westminster Hall debate on these issues. I hope to have the chance to visit prisons in Scotland soon and to talk to the Scottish Justice Minister about some of these issues.

Court Estate: Gloucestershire

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What plans he has for the future of the court estate in Gloucestershire.

Shailesh Vara: The court estate in Gloucestershire, and across England and Wales, is a major asset of
	Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Any new proposals on the future of the courts will be subject to consultation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend, as part of the Courts and Tribunals Service reform programme, consider establishing one purpose-built building to house all court services?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am very mindful of the state of affairs of Gloucestershire’s court estate. It is important that court buildings provide value for money and meet local demand. I will certainly ensure that his comments are taken on board.

Richard Graham: I have discussed the issue of the courts in Gloucestershire—and in Gloucester in particular, where we have a Crown court that predates the battle of Waterloo—with the Minister and his predecessors for several years. As my neighbour and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), has said, our courts are in a dire position. Will he confirm today that the Department will look very closely at the state of the courts and take advantage of the opportunity to use the site we have reserved free of charge in Blackfriars?

Shailesh Vara: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election. I know the issue of the court structure was a key element in the general election. It is good to see that, post-election, he continues to battle for that cause. We have met and corresponded on this issue, so he will be aware that, as we speak, officials are engaged in considering the best way forward.

Prisons: Work

Matt Warman: What progress he has made on ensuring that prisoners undertake work in prisons.

Andrew Selous: We want prisons to be places of industry and purposeful activity by replicating as far as possible a normal working week, and by teaching skills that lead to employment on release and reduced reoffending. From 2010-11 to 2013-14, the number of hours worked in prisons increased by a third from 10.6 million to 14.2 million in public sector prisons.

Matt Warman: The Minister will be aware that a number of my constituents in North Sea Camp open prison are already undertaking a great deal of paid work. What work is the Department doing to ensure that people are moved to open prisons at the right time, rather than before time?

Andrew Selous: Only prisoners assessed as at low risk of absconding and low risk of harm to the public, and who are within two years of release, may be allocated to an open prison. An open prison provides resettlement opportunities, including paid work that can support successful reintegration into the community and help to reduce the risk of reoffending. We want all prisoners to take advantage of these opportunities. We will continue to encourage all prisoners to do so.

Kate Green: The prison service is housing an increasing number of older prisoners. What steps are being taken to rehabilitate prisoners who are too old or too ill to work?

Andrew Selous: We cannot require older prisoners to work, but I would certainly want those opportunities to be available to older prisoners, just as they are to many older people in society who want to carry on working. All our educational opportunities are, of course, open to older prisoners. We recognise the challenge, which the hon. Lady rightly raises, of an increasingly elderly prison population.

Edward Garnier: Between 2005 and 2009, I visited about 65 prisons in England and Wales, and it was my universal experience that the work done by prisoners was more or less useless to the outside world. In one prison, I saw people making hairnets. No doubt there is a market for hairnets—

Michael Fabricant: There is!

Edward Garnier: None of the prisoners in that prison—it was not too far from Lichfield!—was ever going to leave prison to work in a hairnet factory. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that proper wages are paid for the work we tell prisoners to do, so that they can support their families, rather than the welfare state, and can leave prison and get a job that they want to do?

Mr Speaker: I think the hairnet has been replaced, to judge by the length of the question, but we greatly enjoyed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question.

Andrew Selous: I have great respect for my right hon. and learned Friend and for his seminal work, “Prisons with a Purpose”. Of course we want high-quality work. I could show him what is happening in Halfords academy at Olney prison, where prisoners are trained to be bicycle mechanics so that they can get a job on release; or I could tell him about the new work we are doing with the Ministry of Defence, which has been much appreciated by that Department.

Helen Jones: The Minister will be well aware that one of the biggest safeguards against reoffending is getting people into a job. In a number of prisons, including HMP Risley in my constituency, however, prisoners are often denied access to work experience because the prison wings are locked owing to a shortage of staff. What is the hon. Gentleman doing to tackle this problem?

Andrew Selous: We are doing a great deal about it. The first and most important thing is that we were successful in recruiting more than 1,700 extra prison officers in the year to March, and we are going to carry on recruiting the same number of prison officers. That will lead to more staff on the wings, allowing more access to work activities to achieve exactly what the hon. Lady wants.

Burglary

Laurence Robertson: If he will take steps to increase the penalties available for people convicted of burglary offences.

Mike Penning: Since 2010, crime has fallen across the country, and in my hon. Friend’s constituency by 19%. Burglary has a disproportionate effect on victims, which is why we are pleased that custodial cases for domestic burglary have increased from 22.6 months in 2010 to 26 months in 2014.

Laurence Robertson: I am pleased that the Minister is taking this crime very seriously indeed. Police forces tell us that a very small number of people commit a very high percentage of burglaries. Is it not easier to take those people out of circulation for even longer so that, very simply, they will not be able to commit those crimes?

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why this Parliament has decided that the maximum prison sentence for this offence should be 14 years. It is for the judiciary to decide what sentence burglars get, but I am sure that the judiciary listens to the will of Parliament.

John Pugh: Many burglaries are driven by major addiction issues, so what is being done to increase the range and variety of solutions? Is there not a place for innovative solutions?

Mike Penning: A pilot project to get rid of cautions and defer prosecutions took place in three constituencies during the last Parliament, and it is doing really well at the moment. This is exactly the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. People will know how the offences they have committed affect the community. We can keep them out of prison for low-level offences, but put them in prison for high-level offences.

David Burrowes: Mandatory sentencing with “two strikes and you’re out” has had its impact on burglary. When is the Minister going to get on and implement this mandatory “two strikes and you’re out” policy for knife crime? It was introduced in January, but now we need to ensure that we set a clear implementation date rather than have the latest “as soon as possible” response from the Department.

Mike Penning: It is right and proper to pay tribute to Nick de Bois, whose work on knife crime from the Government Benches led to legislation being put on the statute book. My hon. Friend, who knows me well, will know that I intend to implement it as soon as I possibly can.

Gavin Robinson: Is the Minister aware that in the last few weeks, the Northern Ireland Assembly has discussed the prospect of mandatory minimum sentences for those who attack elderly people within our society? Does he agree that it is time Parliament sent out a loud and clear message that attacking the most vulnerable members of our society will not be tolerated? Will he meet me to discuss the prospect of introducing mandatory minimums in that regard?

Mike Penning: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue of mandatory minimums is devolved to Northern Ireland, but we will continue to look into it very carefully. I am pleased to say that last Thursday I met David Ford,
	Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, and the Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The matter was also discussed during the Anglo-Irish summit in Dublin.

Prison Officer Recruitment

Chloe Smith: What steps he is taking to increase the recruitment of prison officers.

Andrew Selous: I believe that prison officers are among the unsung heroes of the public sector. Day in day out, they do amazing work in protecting the public. I am pleased to report that we more than met our target of 1,700 new prison officers by March 2015, and we intend to recruit a further 1,700 by March 2016.

Chloe Smith: I welcome that update. As the Minister knows, prison officers serving in HMP Norwich in my constituency, which he visited recently, and at nearby prisons such as Bure, work incredibly hard in difficult circumstances. Will he do everything possible to support them in relation to their work and conditions?

Andrew Selous: Of course I will. Both Norwich and Bure prisons are well resourced with prison officers and have a full complement of staff, but the National Offender Management Service will continue to monitor the resources that are available to both governors. I was very impressed with the work that was being done in Norwich prison, and also by the work being done in Café Britannia, outside the prison gates.

David Hanson: How many prison officers were in post in May 2010, and how many are in post now? Have the numbers not been cut by about 40% overall?

Andrew Selous: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the exact figures. However, our benchmarking exercise has brought about a number of developments, not least the prisoner-facing roles that prison officers did not always have before. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have closed 14 prisons. The National Audit Office has complimented us on our management of the prison estate, and we continue to recruit more prison officers.

Peter Bone: I understand that the Minister has created a reserve force of prison officers and three reserve prisons, one of which is Wellingborough. Will he say a little more about that exercise?

Andrew Selous: As my hon. Friend may know, when soldiers leave the Regular Army, we encourage some of them to join the Army reserves, and I suppose that this concept is similar to that. The prison officer reserve has about 100 members, which gives us flexibility. I cannot update my hon. Friend any further on what I have said in the past, but this is the right thing to do.

Ian Lavery: Does the Minister share my deep concern about the fact that some of the
	prison officers who are currently being recruited have not even undergone a simple Criminal Records Bureau check?

Andrew Selous: I am very surprised to hear that. We take prison officer training extremely seriously, but I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has just told me as a matter of urgency. We are increasing the amount of time that prison officers spend being trained, and we continually improve the training we give them.

Departmental Absence Management

Henry Bellingham: How many days of sickness absence there were in his Department in (a) 2012, (b) 2013 and (c) 2014; and if he will make a statement.

Caroline Dinenage: The average number of days lost to sickness absence in the Ministry of Justice was 9.8 in 2012 and 2013, and 10.2 in 2014. The Department is committed to supporting the health and wellbeing of its employees and reducing sickness absence.

Henry Bellingham: Obviously, those are disappointing figures. Is the Minister aware that last year’s figures were twice as bad as those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and four times as bad as those in the Department for International Development? What will she, the Secretary of State and other Ministers do to improve morale and sort out this very disappointing situation?

Caroline Dinenage: A large proportion of Ministry of Justice roles involve front-line prison staff, whose working environment is, of course, more physically rigorous than those of staff with office-based roles. It is important to note that other Departments’ sickness numbers do not include front-line roles such as those of soldiers, police officers and, indeed, nurses. When we take into account only civil servants who are employed in Whitehall, we see that Ministry of Justice staff actually take fewer sick days than those in other Departments.

Fiona Mactaggart: But that suggests that it is prison officers who have been the victim of assaults by prisoners, for example, who are taking sickness absence. What is this year’s rate of assaults on prison officers, and what is the Department doing to reduce it?

Caroline Dinenage: Of course the Department takes any assault on a prison officer incredibly seriously. It is essential that prison officers feel that the full weight of the state is behind them as they fulfil their duties. When there are serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrators will be prosecuted unless there is an extremely good reason for not doing so.

Richard Arkless: Given those figures, it might be pertinent to ask whether the Minister’s Department is a living wage employer.

Caroline Dinenage: We certainly are, as far as I understand it, and I am looking at that moving forward.

Reoffending

Kate Osamor: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Mike Penning: May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady? Edmonton is a part of the world I know extremely well: it is where I grew up and did my early schooling, in Montagu Road. We have opened up the delivery of rehabilitation services through a diverse range of public, private and voluntary sector providers, who are providing excellent new facilities so that we can have fewer people reoffending.

Kate Osamor: Half of the prisons inspected by Ofsted in 2013 and 2014 were judged either to require improvement or as inadequate for learning and skills. Purposeful activity for adult male prisoners has plummeted in the past few years. Does the Minister agree that budget cuts are reducing opportunities for rehabilitation?

Mike Penning: No I do not. We inherited a really difficult situation with the economy when we came to power, but the way we have reorganised rehabilitation and training is vitally important. The key to rehabilitation is to ensure that people do not reoffend, and education and training are often the best ways of giving them an opportunity in life.

John Howell: In the last Parliament, I visited a prison in Denmark with the Justice Select Committee. One of the biggest contributors to preventing the prisoners from reoffending was their ability to cook their own food. Does the Minister agree that that ability is not a reward for good behaviour but an essential part of dealing with reoffending?

Mike Penning: I am not the Prisons Minister but I have visited many prisons, not least the ones on the edge of my own constituency, and I have seen that happening in our own prisons. Giving people life skills is vital, as is giving them somewhere to live when they come out.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Minister agree that we need to retain the Human Rights Act as part of a programme established to deal with reoffending, in order to ensure that proper standards of human rights are adhered to in prisons?

Mike Penning: This country has led on human rights for centuries, and it will be no different when we introduce the legislation to ensure that this Parliament decides exactly what goes on, rather than a foreign court.

Tom Pursglove: Schemes such as that offered by National Grid get young offenders into a job and a routine and back on the right path. What assessment has the Minister made of such opportunities for the future?

Mike Penning: I reiterate what the Secretary of State said earlier. Companies such as National Grid, Timpson and Greggs are doing a wonderful job for the community as well as for the individuals involved. Getting people
	back into work is by far the best way of giving them the self-esteem that they need and ensuring that they do not commit crimes.

Jenny Chapman: Reconviction rates double for prisoners who report using drugs in the four weeks before custody. If the Minister and his many colleagues do just one thing, will they please ensure that they reduce access to drugs in prison?

Mike Penning: I was responsible for drugs while I was at the Home Office as well, and I shall be responsible for taking the relevant legislation through the House when it arrives here from the other place. This matter is taken enormously seriously, and I am sure that the Prisons Minister is doing everything he possibly can to ensure that drugs do not get into our prisons.

Jenny Chapman: I am glad to hear that the Minister is taking the matter seriously—and so he should—but he might want to look at what is actually happening on the ground. Just this morning, the chief inspector of prisons published a report on Pentonville prison in which, among his many criticisms, he observed that there was no detailed drug supply strategy. How many other prisons do not have a detailed drug supply strategy?

Mike Penning: I shall write to the hon. Lady on the exact question she has asked. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has given prisons additional powers to test specifically for controlled drugs. I take this seriously, and I have stood outside prisons on patrol with the police and seen individuals pinging drugs across the fences. That is the sort of thing we need to address, making sure those people get penalised exactly like those who are taking the drugs.

Youth Justice

Christina Rees: What plans he has for reform of the youth justice system; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Gove: There has been a welcome decline over the past few years in the number of young offenders, but we know that more needs to be done to prevent young people being drawn into crime. We are committed to preventing youth offending and supporting young people to turn their back on crime.

Christina Rees: The number of young people behind bars is indeed falling, but the latest figures show that the number of white children in custody has fallen at twice the rate of that for those from ethnic minorities. What is the Justice Secretary doing to ensure that we help all young people to turn their lives around, regardless of race or background?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. As we discussed earlier in this questions session, there is often a link between circumstances of deprivation and a propensity to offend among young people. Sadly, far too many people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds grow up in homes where they do not have the stability, support and love that all of us think every young person should have. We need to do more to
	intervene long before young people fall into the hands of the justice system. Working with the Department for Education, I hope we can improve the way in which we support families, support the family courts and support the care system to look after damaged and fragile young people.

Wayne David: Consistently, Labour Members, along with charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, have argued that the idea of a secure college for young offenders is fundamentally wrong. Will the Justice Secretary indicate whether he has yet decided to drop his plans?

Michael Gove: They are under review.

Wayne David: An interesting and pithy response, but it does not take us forward, does it? We all agree that education should play a central role in rehabilitation, but spending £85 million on a new prison of this kind is not the best way to help young offenders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed misgivings about these plans, so will the Justice Secretary tell us, here and now, whether the project will be cancelled?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes some characteristically effective points, and of course I was listening very carefully.

Court Reform

Peter Aldous: What progress he has made on reform of the courts system.

Michael Gove: Thanks to the leadership shown by our judiciary—in particular, by Sir Brian Leveson—we are now in a position to reform access to justice comprehensively.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Lowestoft magistrates court plays an important role in providing local access to justice in north-east Suffolk. Will he meet local users and me to agree on the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the court continues to play that role into the long term?

Michael Gove: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and those who have benefited from the administration of justice in the part of Suffolk he represents, but it is important to recognise that a third of our courts and tribunals are used less than 50% of the time. We do need to reform our court estate, but we can do so and improve access to justice by taking a 21st-century approach to ensuring that justice is served.

Kevin Brennan: Cuts to legal aid have meant that lots of our constituents are finding it even more difficult to access justice, and often they are the most vulnerable constituents who come to see us at our surgeries as a result. What is the new Justice Secretary going to do to make sure that those individuals get access to justice?

Michael Gove: We are going to review the operation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Act that transformed and reformed our
	legal aid landscape. We are also, as I have today, going to ask the very richest in the justice system to do a little bit more. One thing that struck me is that there are people in senior solicitors’ firms and in our best chambers who are not doing enough, given how well they have done out of the legal system, to support the very poorest—they need to do more.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to have a more efficient courts service we need a more efficient listing system, and that to get that we need to take more of our existing courts and put them into fewer buildings and to have more efficiency in the use of technology?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is, not for the first or for the last time, absolutely right. He was a great Justice Minister and he is absolutely on the button when he makes the point that we need a more efficient administration of justice in the interests of victims, witnesses and taxpayers.

Andrew Slaughter: The Lord Chancellor has indeed had something to say about the reform of the court system this morning. May I say “Well done” for spotting the gaping inequality in the justice system that his predecessor has created? Did he have in mind the 89% fall in social welfare legal aid cases under the previous Government—legal aid for the very poorest—or his own further cut in criminal legal aid announced last week? The president of the Law Society said that that cut could
	“undermine the criminal justice system to the point that it may no longer deliver fair outcomes.”

Michael Gove: As usual, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the generous and bipartisan tone in which he conducts these exchanges. I am also grateful to him for drawing attention to some of the reforms that we have made to reduce the amount spent on legal aid. When his colleague and friend the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was the shadow Justice Secretary, he made the point that the amount that the previous Labour Government spent on legal aid was unsustainable. We will review the reforms that we have made to ensure that we can maintain access to justice and also safeguard the interests of victims, witnesses and taxpayers.

Mental Health

Cheryl Gillan: What recent discussions he has had on the treatment of people with mental health issues in the criminal justice system.

Caroline Dinenage: Addressing the individual mental health needs of offenders and ensuring continuity of service from the community into custody are essential to wellbeing and rehabilitation. We work closely with the Department of Health and with the Welsh Government, who have responsibility for the commissioning of health services, in order to address this important issue.

Cheryl Gillan: May I welcome the Minister to her position? Autism is a lifelong developmental disability, which often mistakenly gets classified under mental health issues, especially in the criminal justice system where too many people do not get the help they need. I am heartened that many prisoners are now seeking accreditation from the National Autistic Society for the skills and the support required for people with autism, but we need better understanding in our courts and in the Crown Prosecution Service. Will the Minister update me on the long-awaited aide-mémoire and support material for the CPS prosecutors that the Department was going to produce after the Think Autism adult strategy was published?

Caroline Dinenage: I thank my right hon. Friend for her very kind welcome. I would like to praise her for her ongoing commitment to this really important issue, particularly her work steering the Autism Act 2009 on to the statute book. We are clear that we need a system that ensures that the most vulnerable have access to the right support and help. That is why we are putting in place a programme of reforms to improve the experience of vulnerable victims and witnesses in court, as well as enhanced protection outside.

Chris Evans: I welcome both the Minister and the Lord Chancellor to their places. In November 2014, Argoed, a close-knit community in my constituency, was rocked by the horrific murder of Cerys Yemm. She was killed by a prisoner who had just been released and sent to stay in a bed and breakfast. Neither the council nor the landlady was told of his mental health issues. He could not get hold of the mental health medication he needed, the result of which was this unfortunate incident. His mother says that he was in and out of the criminal justice system all his life. He would go into a hostel, and then back to prison when he committed another crime. I thank the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to meet me to discuss this case. Will the Department now launch an urgent investigation into how we monitor the mental health of former prisoners?

Caroline Dinenage: It is really important that we carefully monitor how mental health is regarded from within the community into the prison system and then back out into the community again. I know that the Secretary of State and the Prisons Minister have agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that they will listen carefully to everything that he has to say.

James Morris: Further to that question, does the Minister agree that when somebody has had a psychiatric assessment in prison, the information about their condition should be shared with all services, including social services and the police, when they leave prison? That would ensure that we had continuity of information about their condition so that when they came back into society we were clear about what we needed to do with them.

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, in the community, community rehabilitation companies and the National Probation Service are required to ensure that offenders comply with court-ordered treatment services. Probation services also supply offenders with access to mainstream mental health treatment by referring as appropriate.

Peter Dowd: To protect and ensure sufficient access for people with mental health problems, the Justice Committee urged the Government in 2011—reaffirmed in a 2015 report—to carry out research into the geographical distribution of legal aid providers to avoid irreparable loss of capacity. What progress has been made on that recommendation?

Caroline Dinenage: I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact details, but NHS England has developed national specifications for health and justice services. All prisons now have clear commissioning models, and that works as people leave prison and move into the community rehabilitation service as well.

European Convention on Human Rights

Catherine West: What his policy is on the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement.

Dominic Raab: We will legislate for a Bill of Rights to protect our fundamental rights, prevent abuse of the system and restore some common sense to our human rights laws. Our plans do not involve us leaving the convention; that is not our objective, but our No. 1 priority is to restore some balance to our human rights laws, so no option is off the table for the future.

Catherine West: When will Ministers publish a draft Bill of Rights, as mooted in the recent election campaign?

Dominic Raab: We said very clearly that we shall deliver this in this Parliament. We shall have a consultation in this Session so our plans will be brought forward shortly.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has had a proud tradition with regard to human rights, and it will remain a central part of what we do to promote best practice around the world, but in the end, the country’s commitment to human rights will be judged on its actions, not merely the piece of paper it happens to have signed?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a strong record on human rights. We will continue to set an example around the world, but in our own domestic laws we do need to make sure that we have a common-sense balance. It is not a left or right issue; it is what the public expect as a matter of common sense.

Joanna Cherry: Is the Minister aware that the Church of Scotland has expressed concern about his Government’s plans to repeal the Human Rights Act? Will he now support the Church of Scotland’s call for human rights to be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

Dominic Raab: We are well aware of the concerns that have been expressed. We will be consulting fully, including with the devolved Administrations, in due course.

Richard Drax: I welcome the Minister to his place. We often hear about rights. Does he agree that perhaps it should be renamed the European convention on human responsibilities?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend has been tenacious in his campaigning on this subject. He comes up with an ingenious suggestion. Actually, our concern has been less with the black-letter text of the convention and more with its application. Some of the problems have arisen from judicial legislation in the Strasbourg Court, some of them through the operation of the Human Rights Act, as the former shadow Justice Secretary acknowledged. We want to protect our fundamental rights and prevent abuse of the system.

Andrew Slaughter: Sir John Major, giving the inaugural Edward Heath lecture on the subject of Magna Carta last week, said that he respected the “power and significance” of the European convention on human rights, and that where there was conflict with the UK Parliament,
	“I expect consultation and compromise to settle this issue.”
	Should not the Minister, and indeed the Lord Chancellor, heed the advice of someone with so much experience of running a Tory Government with a wafer-thin majority?

Dominic Raab: We listen to all the informed voices in this debate. That is why we are going to have full consultation. We look forward to discussing this with the hon. Gentleman and many others across the House.

Human Rights Act

Kirsty Blackman: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the future of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Michael Gove: I am due to meet the Justice Minister in the Scottish Government next week.

Kirsty Blackman: I welcome that news. The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Parliament voted by 100 votes to 10 to endorse the Human Rights Act last year, and that parties representing 58 of the 59 Scottish Westminster seats are against the repeal. Will the Minister make a commitment to not imposing the repeal on Scotland against the will of our people?

Michael Gove: I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, not just as the Member of Parliament who represents my parents, but as a Member of Parliament who was educated at the same school as me. She makes a very powerful point about the range of opinions in support of safeguarding, enhancing and indeed modernising our human rights in this country. I shall look forward to engaging with the Scottish National party and others, but I think it is important to stress that in this United Kingdom Parliament, human rights are a reserved matter, and parties that support reform of the Human Rights Act secured more than 50% of the votes at the last general election.

Mr Speaker: Mr Hollobone?

Philip Hollobone: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: Very rare!

Prison Reform

Nigel Huddleston: What plans he has for reform of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Selous: We are very ambitious to reform prisons; to make them places of learning, training and work, and where healthy family relationships are kept strong, in order to change prisoners’ lives for the better, prevent people becoming victims and keep the public safe.

Nigel Huddleston: Long Lartin maximum security prison is in my constituency. In the context of any discussions on reform, does my hon. Friend agree that the safety and security of prison officers and prison workers is also of paramount importance?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is wholly unacceptable that prison officers should be assaulted during the course of their duties. We have extensive violence-reduction work going on within the National Offender Management Service, in which I am taking an extremely close interest—I meet officials every month to track progress. We are absolutely determined to get on top of it so that prisons are safe for prison officers.

Danny Kinahan: Northern Ireland prisons are brimful at the moment and struggling, and the prison officers are suffering as a result of the cuts. Will we look at reform of prisons across all the devolved Governments, working together to find a way forward, or will it be a case of “devolve and forget”?

Andrew Selous: As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State has said, the Government are keen to talk with all the devolved Administrations in the UK, because we absolutely believe that we can learn from each other. Where we can, I think that we should help each other as well.

Paul Maynard: I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of reforming rehabilitation in prisons. Does he share my concern about reports from chaplains across the prison estate that they are struggling to organise collective worship because of the number of hours that prisoners are spending behind bars in their cells?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; collective or corporate worship is important and all prisoners should have access to it. We will do our absolute best to ensure that that happens. With the increasing number of prison officers, that should be increasingly possible.

Topical Questions

Kevin Foster: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: Today I was able to confirm that the Ministry of Justice will throw its full weight behind
	the reform programme for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, led so ably by the Lord Chief Justice and supported by Sir Brian Leveson and the whole Judicial Executive Board.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the news that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor shares my concern about issues in our courts that could lead to a two-tier justice system. As he will be aware, in Devon insufficient bids were received for the new legal aid contract for advice at police stations. Will he agree to meet me and representatives of the profession to discuss the specific issues that have led to that situation, such as the geography of the area, and how they can be resolved?

Michael Gove: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. It is very important that we ensure that in rural areas such as Devon everyone has access to the justice they deserve.

Cat Smith: In Lancashire almost one third of domestic abuse victims at multi-agency risk assessment conferences are repeat victims. Anecdotally, many perpetrators are repeat offenders, but no statistics are available on that. What action is the Minister taking to identify repeat and serious perpetrators of domestic abuse?

Caroline Dinenage: That is a very important question, and something we take very seriously. It is important that we make every effort to identify the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, but we are also determined to ensure that anyone facing the threat of domestic violence has somewhere to turn, which is why we are working closely across the Government, with the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government, to address this important issue.

Thomas Tugendhat: Will the Minister update the House on progress being made to improve the military covenant by protecting service personnel from judicial expansionism?

Mike Penning: My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. One minute our servicemen are heroes, and the next minute they are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Charities such as Care after Combat, which was recently formed, are doing fantastic work that is being piloted in our prisons. I would like to meet my hon. Friend again to see how we can work together to ensure that our heroes do not end up in the criminal justice system.

Clive Lewis: Last week the Scottish Government celebrated the 10th anniversary of legal humanist marriage. Given their popularity —there has been an upsurge in the number of such marriages in that country—and support in both Houses, can the Minister give us an idea of whether the Government would like to implement something similar in this country?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, marriage is one of our most important institutions and we need to make sure that any changes to the law are carried out with care. That is
	why we have asked the Law Commission to undertake a preliminary scoping study to prepare the way for potential future reform. It is due to report in December and then the Government will consider the next steps very carefully.

Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend look carefully again at the workings of the European arrest warrant following the announcements last night from London and from Kigali, Rwanda, and the misuse of the process by a junior Spanish judge for political rather than judicial purposes?

Michael Gove: Few people know more about, or are more committed to, the welfare of the Rwandan people than my right hon. Friend, and few Members of this House are more committed to due process and human rights, so I take very seriously the points that he raises. I will look very closely at this case and report back to him.

Jeremy Corbyn: Could the Secretary of State explain exactly what is his policy towards the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights? On the one hand, he says that he supports the convention; on the other, he says that all decisions must be made in British courts. If all decisions are made in British courts, then the role of the European Court of Human Rights will be an utter irrelevance to Britain, and British people will therefore be denied the right of access to a treaty obligation that we signed in 1948.

Michael Gove: May I, on behalf of everyone on the Government Benches, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making it on to the ballot for the Labour leadership? Had he required any more signatures, I would have been happy to defect in order to ensure that a full spectrum of views was behind him. He makes a very important point. We want to ensure that people’s access to human rights is enhanced as a result of legislative changes that we make.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has overcome his natural shyness, with which the House is well familiar.

Philip Hollobone: You are very kind, Mr Speaker.
	How many foreign national offenders do we have in our prisons, and what plans are under way to send these people back to secure detention in their own countries?

Andrew Selous: This Parliament would not have been the same had not my hon. Friend carried on with his diligent scrutiny of this important subject. I can report to him that at 31 March 2015 10,481 foreign national offenders were in custody in England and Wales, just over 6,000 of whom are sentenced prisoners. The Immigration Act 2014 has enabled us to cut the number of appeal rights from 17 to four. Over 800 removals have now taken place as a result of these changes. Last year, the Home Office managed to send back over 5,000 foreign national offenders.

Sue Hayman: Most women entering prison serve very short sentences. Last year, 58% were serving six months or less. Twenty years ago, this figure was only a third. As 82% of women who enter prison under sentence have committed a non-violent offence, why is this figure increasing?

Caroline Dinenage: The decision to impose a custodial sentence is of course one for the independent judiciary. The law requires that a custodial sentence be passed only where an offence is so serious that neither a community sentence nor a fine will do. The courts take into account all circumstances regarding the offence and the offender. It is important to remember that just because an offence is not violent, that does not mean that it does not have victims—multiple victims—and that it is not serious.

Damian Green: I am delighted that the Lord Chancellor has committed himself to speeding up the process of justice—an essential task that I suspect he will find is like painting the Forth bridge with a toothbrush. Does he agree that one of the essential elements of that is that the digital technology increasingly available in courts talks to the digital technology that the police use in collecting evidence, because if not, it will not happen?

Mike Penning: The technology that my right hon. Friend alludes to is now coming on to the front line, and it is the sort of kit that we absolutely need. Body-worn cameras are the new replacement for Airwave, and that is absolutely vital. We must make sure that the information taken by that technology on the streets can be used all the way through the criminal justice system, particularly in the courts.

Chi Onwurah: Yesterday it emerged that the Secretary of State was considering making it more difficult to get hold of official documents under freedom of information rules. I recall that the previous Cabinet Minister, the now noble Lord Maude, suggested that open data should replace freedom of information. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he has any plans whatsoever to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and if so, what he has to hide?

Michael Gove: I think we do need to revisit the Freedom of Information Act. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that the advice that civil servants give to Ministers of whatever Government is protected so that civil servants can speak candidly and offer advice in order to ensure that Ministers do not make mistakes. There has been a worrying tendency in our courts and elsewhere to erode the protections for that safe space for policy advice, and I think it absolutely needs to be asserted. There is no contradiction between making sure that we give civil servants the protection they deserve and also ensuring that the data—for example, the amount we spend in any Government Department—are more transparent than ever.

Heather Wheeler: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) to her new position. Does she agree about the importance of maintaining family
	ties and ensuring the rehabilitation of female offenders, as exemplified by the hard work undertaken at Foston Hall ladies prison in my constituency?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes, it is important to maintain family ties, and family engagement workers are in place in all public sector female prisons, including Foston Hall. They meet all prisoners on induction to identify any support required to maintain or establish family contact. Women’s prisons are also looking at other support for improved family links, including family days, child-centred visits, homework clubs and specific relationship and parenting skills programmes.

Corri Wilson: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on freedom of information, does the Secretary of State intend to introduce legislation on proposals to price out FOI requests and extend the ministerial veto, which my party would oppose, and will he give us a timetable for that?

Michael Gove: We want to review the operation of the original Freedom of Information Act. Some of the judgments that have been made have actually run contrary to the spirit of the original Act, and some of those behind the original Act, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Home Secretary who introduced the legislation, Jack Straw, have been very clear about the defects in the way in which the Act has operated. It is vital that we get back to the founding principles of freedom of information. Citizens should have access to data and they should know what is done in their name and about the money that is spent in their name, but it is also vital that the conversations between Ministers and civil servants are protected in the interests of good government.

Alan Mak: Do Ministers agree that a British Bill of Rights is an important step towards ensuring that the matter of votes for prisoners remains a matter for this House to decide, and that the best way of rehabilitating offenders is through a good job and education, not political gimmicks?

Dominic Raab: I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He is absolutely right: prisoner voting is a question that should be decided by democratically elected Members of this House. Our wider aim with a Bill of Rights is not only to protect our fundamental rights, but to strengthen the role of the British Supreme Court, defend the rule of law and shield the democratic prerogatives of this House.

Greg Mulholland: The family of Richard Davies are devastated by his death on Yeadon high street. A man has been charged with manslaughter and yet has been granted bail, which is very distressing for the family. What guidance is given to judges—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must listen. My advice is that the case is sub judice and, on the basis of a charge having been brought, it is not appropriate to raise the matter in the Chamber at this time. I recognise the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman, who may find other opportunities, but not now.

Bill Esterson: Does the Secretary of State’s apparent commitment to access to justice for everybody in this country mean that he will reverse the cuts made by the previous Government to that very same access to justice?

Michael Gove: We are committed to reviewing the reforms to legal aid, but I have to stress that it was the Labour party’s former justice spokesman, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who made it clear during the last Parliament that levels of spending on legal aid were unsustainable under the last Government and we needed to reform. After all, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) told us, there was no money left.

Chris Skidmore: In March I brought the families of Ross and Claire Simons, who were horrifically killed in my constituency by a dangerous driver, to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving, which is currently 14 years. In this particular case, the dangerous driver was given 11 years, which could be brought down to five years as a result of good behaviour. The Prime Minister made a commitment to the families to contact the then Justice Secretary to ensure that the Government looked seriously at extending the maximum sentence. Will the Secretary of State please look at this case once more?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. We have increased the maximum penalties for a number of driving offences, and we are looking carefully at the recommendations of the review announced by the previous Justice Secretary and considering how best to take them forward in a proportionate and consistent manner. We will report back to the House shortly.

Andrew Gwynne: The Lord Chancellor has suggested that there will be a further reorganisation of the court estate. How many courts does he anticipate being included, and given the number of courts that the coalition Government closed that are still lying empty and costing the taxpayer millions of pounds, can he assure us that there will be better value for the taxpayer this time round?

Michael Gove: We suspect that a significant number of additional courts will have to close, and I will make sure that Parliament is fully informed about that process in due course. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We need to make sure that we get value for money from the disposal of those buildings, and decisions that have been made in the past suggest that the Ministry of Justice has not always done the right thing when investing in the court estate.

Nigel Evans: All the statistics demonstrate that a significant number of people with mental health needs end up in prison. Is the Minister really content that there is sufficient treatment for those in prison? She has said that she is in dialogue with the Department of Health. Does she not have the same suspicion as me that if we had more effective treatment in the general community, fewer people with mental health problems would end up in prison?

Caroline Dinenage: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and we are doing just that. In England, we are working with the Department of Health and the Home Office to support NHS England to develop liaison and diversion services. Those services place NHS staff, usually a mental health nurse, at police stations and courts to assess offenders for a range of health problems, including mental health problems, and refer them to the right treatment and support services. The information can then be shared with courts, prisons and probation services to inform decisions on charging and sentencing.

Tom Brake: The coalition Government increased the transparency of government by requiring Ministers to report on their meetings with outside organisations. Is the Justice Secretary not embarrassed that he now wants to reduce Government transparency by strengthening the ministerial veto on freedom of information requests?

Michael Gove: I enjoyed serving in the coalition Government alongside the right hon. Gentleman, and I welcome him back to the House.
	It is absolutely right that people should know who Ministers meet and which lobby groups and others take up ministerial time, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is vital that we protect civil servants by making sure that they can give full and frank advice. Sometimes, as well as respecting transparency, we have to respect confidentiality. We have a duty of care towards those in the civil service who do such a good job of supporting Ministers.

Martin Vickers: Ministers will be aware of the incident last week at Killingholme, in my constituency, when 51 illegal immigrants were apprehended following a successful operation by Border Force. They were dispersed to detention centres throughout the country. Can the Secretary of State assure me that adequate provision will be made for future incidents of this type, and that the legal process will not in any way hinder their speedy deportation?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. It is vital that we ensure that there is appropriate provision for people who have been taking advantage of our generosity. I will therefore work with the Home Secretary to ensure that we have the facilities necessary to deal with situations such as the one that my hon. Friend’s constituents have had to face.

Carolyn Harris: The Government recently announced that they were going ahead with a further 8.75% fee cut to criminal legal aid, the second in a year. The existing system, especially the online Crown Commercial Service system, is already wholly inadequate. What justification is there for further cuts, other than to further reduce access to justice for those most in need?

Shailesh Vara: May I first welcome the hon. Lady to the House?
	It is important that we recognise that we have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, and that it needs to be sustainable. It has to be fair to the
	people who need legally aided advice, fair to the providers and fair to the taxpayer, who ultimately pays for it. As far as the latest 8.75% cut is concerned, we have made sure that there will be proper access for all those who need legal advice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but time is against us and we must now move on.

Point of Order

Chi Onwurah: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today is National Women in Engineering Day, and it is also Parliamentary Links Day, when we celebrate the links between Parliament, science and engineering—celebrations that you yourself, Mr Speaker, were gracious enough to launch this morning. Could you advise me how it might be in order for me to get two such important events on the record?

Mr Speaker: Any advice from me, as the hon. Lady now knows, is superfluous. She has found her own salvation: the matter is on the record; it can never be erased from it. I hope she is satisfied. It is a very good cause.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	EU finance decision: approval, and addition to list of Treaties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Gary Streeter: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 1, in clause2,page1,line18,leave out subsection (3).
	This amendment removes the automatic coming into force of the Act two months after it is passed, which would be incompatible with any of the new Clauses.
	Clause 2 stand part.
	New clause 1—Report on level of EU budget spending—
	“(1) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Treasury shall by order specify.
	(2) The day specified in the order made under subsection (1) shall not be earlier than 14 days after the date on which the condition has been satisfied.
	(3) The condition referred to in subsection (2) is that the Treasury shall have laid before both Houses of Parliament a copy of a communication sent by the Treasury to the European Commission requesting a review by the European Commission of the basis of appropriations for the European Union budget, and in particular—
	(a) a comparative analysis of commitment or payment as the basis for appropriations, and
	(b) a study of whether alternative arrangements might offer in the longer term improved value and enhanced budgetary control.”
	The Clause requires Ministers to seek a European Commission study of whether alternative approaches to funding EU activities would offer better value for money and improved budgetary control.
	New clause 2—Reform of priorities within the EU budget—
	“(1) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Treasury shall by order specify.
	(2) The day specified in the order made under subsection (1) shall not be earlier than 14 days after the date on which the condition has been satisfied.
	(3) The condition referred to in subsection (2) is that the Secretary of State shall have laid before both Houses of Parliament a copy of a communication sent by the Secretary of State to the President of the European Council requesting a fundamental review by the Council of Ministers to be completed before 31 December 2015 of budget priorities, waste and inefficiency within the European Union budget.”
	The Clause requires Ministers to seek a Council of Ministers review of budget priorities, waste and inefficiency within the EU budget to be completed by the end of 2015.
	New clause 3—Accountability and transparency—
	“(1) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Treasury shall by order specify.
	(2) The day specified in the order made under subsection (1) shall not be earlier than 14 days after the date on which the condition has been satisfied.
	(3) The condition referred to in subsection (2) is that the Secretary of State shall have laid before both Houses of Parliament a copy of a communication sent by the Secretary of State to the President of the European Commission inviting officials to provide
	the relevant European affairs select committee in each House of Parliament with details of the draft European budget for each financial year before the draft European budget is agreed in the Council of Ministers.”
	The Clause would require Ministers to invite European Commission budget representatives to provide details of the draft European budget to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Committee each year before the EU budget is agreed.

David Gauke: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter. Clause stand part, the amendment and the new clauses have been grouped, so if it is convenient I shall start with the two clauses, turn to the new clauses and finish with the amendment, which is consequential and related to the new clauses.
	The purpose of the Bill is to enable the UK to give effect to the new own resources decision amending the arrangements for financing the annual budget of the European Union. The amendments were agreed at the February 2013 European Council, and the new ORD, reflecting those amendments, was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 26 May 2014.
	Clause 1 is fairly simple: it adds the new own resources decision, adopted unanimously in May 2014, to the list of previous ORDs, recognised under the European Communities Act 1972, thus giving it effect under UK law. When passed, the Bill will become the European Union (Finance) Act 2015 and supersede the European Communities (Finance) Act 2008, which approved the previous ORD. Clause 2 cites this legislation as the European Union (Finance) Act 2015 and repeals the 2008 Act.
	For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall explain in a little more detail what the new own resources decision, to which clause 1 refers, means. The new ORD will largely maintain the existing financing system framework, which consists of four pillars: levies and duties on trade with non-member countries in agricultural goods, including sugar; customs duties on trade with non-member countries; the yield from applying a call-up rate to a hypothetical harmonised VAT base for each member state; and a fourth resource based on gross national income—GNI. Those four pillars remain largely untouched in the new ORD, and that is no insignificant achievement. During the negotiations over the multi-annual financial framework and before, there was considerable pressure to change the financing system.

Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend confirm that GNI is assessed in the same way across the whole Community?

David Gauke: Yes, it is. My right hon. Friend raises an important point and I suspect that he has in mind the issues that occurred last year as a consequence of revisions to our GNI and that of other member states, which meant that an additional surcharge was applied to the United Kingdom. He will of course recall the negotiations that followed and how we ensured that payments were delayed and that the rebate applied to the surcharge. There is consistency in the application in this case and that is very important. There is suitable scrutiny and co-ordination, with Eurostat playing a role.

Alex Salmond: The various agreements have been described as a considerable achievement. Under pillar two and the rural development payments, Scotland’s payments will work out at about €12 per hectare. The EU average is €76 per hectare. Would the Minister care to define “considerable achievement” in that light?

David Gauke: I would certainly make it very clear that there was a considerable achievement in the 2013 negotiations that were implemented in 2014. For example, there were calls for changes to the financing system and to introduce new types of member state contributions, but the UK resisted that successfully. There were calls to introduce new EU-wide taxes, including a financial transactions tax, and the UK resisted that successfully. Finally, there were calls to reform the rebate and the Government protected that. That is a considerable achievement.
	On the subject of the regional distribution of common agricultural policy receipts, it is only fair to point out that payments per hectare are only part of the story. Although Scotland receives the lowest payments per hectare, Scottish farmers also receive one of the highest payments per farm in the European Union. On average, Scottish farmers receive just under £26,000 compared with England’s £17,000, Wales’s £16,000 and Northern Ireland’s £7,000. I hope that that provides some clarity for the right hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hoare: I note the irony that the House of Commons Library published its briefing paper on the Bill on the bicentenary of the battle of Waterloo. It notes, with its characteristic understatement, that our
	“rebate is not popular with other Member States or the Commission”.
	May I invite my hon. Friend to make a firm commitment to the retention of our rebate? Will he continue to argue for it and ensure that it is not part of any of the renegotiations on our ongoing membership in the Community?

David Gauke: Absolutely. I am keen to make that commitment and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Those of us who participated in the equivalent debates after the previous multi-annual financial framework was agreed and on the Act that performed the task that this Bill will now perform will recall that we spent some considerable time focusing on the fact that a large part of the rebate had been surrendered by the previous Government for little or nothing, merely a promise of reform of the common agricultural policy that had not been delivered.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

David Gauke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that he participated in that debate.

Kelvin Hopkins: Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I have said many times in this House that the deal done in 2005 was a terrible mistake. The Government have made frequent references to it. Is it not now appropriate to consider trying to regain what was lost in that deal, particularly because our net budget contributions have been rising so strongly in recent years?

David Gauke: First, I acknowledge the consistency with which the hon. Gentleman has approached these issues. If I recall correctly our debates in 2008 and 2009, he expressed clearly his dissatisfaction with the performance of the Government that he supported, in terms of surrendering part of the rebate.
	The other point to make is that the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the Prime Minister’s achievement in that negotiation. When he went to debate and negotiate on these matters, few believed that he would be able to reduce the overall budget in real terms, but he succeeded in doing so. Today’s debate is focused not so much on the expenditure side, although I think we will discuss expenditure thanks to the Opposition’s helpful amendment and new clauses—I was going to say “probing amendments”, but we shall see—but what happened was also very important on the revenue side. It was a considerable success that we were able to resist new types of member states’ contributions, new EU-wide taxes and attempts to reform the rebate. That is of some note.

Oliver Dowden: Will the Minister give way?

David Gauke: I will touch on the smaller changes to the own resources decision in a moment, but first it gives me great pleasure to give way to a fellow Hertfordshire Member of Parliament.

Oliver Dowden: I congratulate the Government on their success in keeping the EU budget down. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to keep pressure on the EU to make sure that it continues to live within its means, not just for this budget settlement but for future budget settlements?

David Gauke: I will certainly make that assurance and indeed, I will set out in a little detail what we are doing in that field. I referred to my hon. Friend as a fellow Hertfordshire MP. However, if I remember correctly, at the time of the negotiation, he was part of the team in Downing Street who were involved in the undoubted success. It is characteristic of his modesty that he did not draw attention to that point, but I daresay that a lot of the credit for the successful negotiation lies in his hands.
	Smaller changes to the own resources decision affect some member states’ contributions and the balance between the pillars of the own resources system. Those are somewhat detailed, but I hope it will be helpful to set them out for the Committee, because they are, in essence, at the heart of the Bill and clauses we are debating.
	Specifically, the smaller changes include the following: the member states’ retention rate for traditional own resources—TOR—which covers member states’ collection costs for customs duties, is reduced from 25% to 20%. That change will have no impact on the ultimate cost of the EU budget to the UK on account of the UK rebate. For the period 2014 to 2020, the ORD also reintroduces the reduced rate of call for VAT-based contributions for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Austria will revert from its reduced call rate over the 2007-2013 multi-annual financial framework to a standard call
	rate of 0.3% over the 2014-2020 MFF. The financial benefit of the changes to the UK depends on technical factors. Even so, on current estimates, those changes point to a benefit of approximately £150 million over the course of the MFF.

Alan Mak: My constituents are still reeling from Labour’s great recession. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Bill will not result in any new taxes or new contributions from the UK?

David Gauke: I can certainly give that assurance. Thanks to the success that the Prime Minister achieved in the negotiations in 2013, no doubt ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and others, that certainly is the case.

James Morris: Was not another of the Prime Minister’s substantial achievements in those negotiations to shift the debate about the future finances of the European Union on to Britain making a contribution to the competitiveness of the European Union, and making sure that resources were allocated to improve competitiveness for business?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He anticipates comments that I will make later relating to how we can ensure that the money is not just controlled and reduced, but better spent. There is a criticism, which I suspect is shared by Members from all parts of the House, that the money that the European Union spends in its various ways is not used as efficiently and is not as focused on improving our competitiveness as it might be. There are encouraging signs that there is a greater focus on that. I will return to that shortly.
	I was running through the various technical changes in the own resources decision. I have touched on the changes to the retention rates. May I also touch on the changes in relation to GNI-based contributions?

Simon Hoare: rose—

David Gauke: Before I do so, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time; he is being very generous. My constituents in North Dorset and people across the south-west want to have confidence that Her Majesty’s Government will in no way acquiesce to a change in our rebate as part of any negotiations. We all understand that the UK’s agreement is contingent on any changes to the rebate. I invite the Minister to make the commitment that the rebate is not part of any renegotiation, that it is absolutely off limits and that this Government will always continue to defend our rebate.

David Gauke: I give the assurance that the Government will always defend our rebate. Perhaps it might be helpful to the Committee if I make the point that I made on Second Reading about the scale and significance of the partial surrender of our rebate by the Labour Government. According to the European Commission, the disapplication of the UK rebate cost the UK about €9 billion over the seven-year period of the previous multi-annual financial framework. Thereafter, with the abatement disapplication fully phased in, the cost to the
	UK is about £2 billion a year. That is a significant sum, particularly given the fiscal circumstances that we continue to face.
	Frankly, the question of what was achieved in return for the surrender of that partial rebate might be asked. Perhaps we will hear an answer to that later this afternoon, but I have not heard a convincing answer yet.

Kevin Foster: The Minister has outlined how the European Union is currently funded through contributions from member states. Some in the European Parliament argue that that system should be replaced by direct taxes levied by the European Union. Will the Minister confirm that the British Government would resist any such move?

David Gauke: Yes, we would resist such a move. It would be a fundamental change to the nature of our relationship with the European Union, and one that would go in entirely the wrong direction for the United Kingdom. There were calls in the negotiations for such a step to be taken. There were calls, for example, for a financial transaction tax to be introduced to finance EU spending. We resisted that. The Prime Minister was very clear in ruling it out from any deal.

Mark Garnier: My hon. Friend talks about the financial transaction tax, but the City is an incredibly important contributor to the UK economy and it has a significant turnover. Will he assure us that the Government will not allow the European Union to attack the City from a different direction as it looks for alternative sources of revenue from the jewel in our economic crown?

David Gauke: I certainly give that assurance. There was a strong push for a financial transaction tax, which would have had a particular impact on the United Kingdom, given that we have the pre-eminent financial centre not just in the European Union, but in the world. That could have been damaging for the City of London. We resisted it and we will continue to take that approach.
	To make a broader point—although I will not go too far down this route, Mr Streeter—it would be more helpful if there was an acceptance in the European Union that the City of London is a jewel in the crown, to use my hon. Friend’s phrase, not just of the United Kingdom, but of Europe as a whole. We should have the pre-eminent financial centre in the United Kingdom, and trying to damage it would be disadvantageous to all within the European Union.

Antoinette Sandbach: Will the Minister welcome the confirmation from the Office for Budget Responsibility that in cash terms, the payment from the UK will be the same in the 2019-20 financial year as it is in 2014-15, which in real terms is a reduction of 7%? Will he encourage the Government to ensure that my constituents in Eddisbury do not pay a greater proportion of their taxes into an ever-increasing European budget, and to seek further reductions of a similar scale?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is noticeable that our contributions are lower than they were in the last year of the previous multi-annual financial framework, not least because of the achievement of the
	Prime Minister in February 2013. Of course, we continue to suffer the unfortunate effects of the previous negotiation, when part of our rebate was lost, amounting to £2 billion a year. None the less, we have made considerable progress thanks to the steps that were taken in 2013.
	For the period from 2014 to 2020, the ORD reintroduces reductions in the GNI-based contributions of the Netherlands and Sweden, and introduces a reduction in those contributions for Denmark. The UK will contribute to those small corrections, but that will largely be offset by changes to other corrections.
	Lastly, the ORD lays down the own resources ceilings at 1.23% of total member states’ GNI for payments and 1.29% for commitments, and sets out the method for calculating subsequent changes to those ceilings following the introduction of the European systems of accounts 2010 by all member states.
	The Bill will give UK approval to the new ORD and is the last UK action that is necessary to deliver the 2013 deal on the budget.

Matt Warman: I admire the level of detail we are going into in this debate and I know that we all find it fascinating, but my constituents often say that they would like to hear details that they can understand, such as household-level figures. I note from the briefing that we are paying the equivalent of a £10 a month subscription per person. Will my hon. Friend confirm that when we talk about the renegotiation, we will do our utmost to talk in language that everyone outside this House can understand, as well as going through the fine detail?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I confess that I have set out rather detailed points. I know hon. Members in the Chamber will be capable of understanding them, but they will not necessarily cause great excitement among the many hundreds of thousands if not millions who are currently viewing the debate. My hon. Friend puts his view of the nature of our contributions in clear language. It is important that we have a Government who are determined to ensure that we get a good deal within the European Union and that we are careful in how we spend money there.

Thomas Tugendhat: I note again a matter that is of great interest to the electors of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling. The budget will be 7% lower in real terms by 2020, which is very welcome, but will the Minister say more on the consequences to the EU budget of the UK’s position, because we are rather hoping that 7% is the beginning and not the end?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who drew attention to the fact that our net contributions are forecast to be lower in 2019-20 compared with 2013-14. In fact, our net contribution in 2019-20 will be £9.3 billion compared with £10.2 billion in 2013-14, which is clearly lower in cash terms but also lower in real terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) raises the issue that we should make a strong case for budget discipline. He wants to ensure that we appreciate
	that we are dealing with taxpayers’ money. Whether UK taxpayers’ money or taxpayers’ money from the wider EU, that money has to be spent wisely. That is a good point, and I will return to it later when we deal with the Labour new clauses and amendment.

Alex Salmond: rose—

David Gauke: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I see he has made more contributions in this Parliament than anyone bar a handful of senior Ministers.

Alex Salmond: I am pleased to say that I have drawn level with the Chancellor on this morning’s assessment.
	I admire the dead bat that the Minister is showing to his Back Benchers, but can he answer this point: is it the Prime Minister’s objective in the European renegotiations to lower the UK’s budget contribution, and if so by how much?

David Gauke: The right hon. Gentleman refers to my dead bat, but I thought I had played a flourishing cover drive. The Prime Minister has set out objectives for a renegotiation, which will then be taken to the British people, who will decide our future as members of the European Union. We believe we should do a wide range of things to ensure that Europe works better for its members. We have consistently argued the case for fiscal discipline and we are not alone in making that case. Indeed, the Bill itself demonstrates that there is strong support for a fiscal disciplinarian approach within the European Union—the fact that we were able to negotiate a reduction in the multi-annual financial framework was a considerable achievement. In those negotiations, we had the support of member states such as Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and others.

Alan Mak: My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made a very important point about protecting the UK’s rebate, which is important to my constituents in Havant and throughout the country. Will the Minister confirm how much of the UK rebate the Labour Government gave away?

David Gauke: I will certainly make that point. It was estimated by the European Commission to be of the value of €9 billion over the previous MFF period. In this MFF period, it would be in the region of £2 billion a year, which would be a considerable loss. The Government will not be repeating that.

Barbara Keeley: I would like to take the Minister back to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), because the Minister did not really answer him. In an article in The Sunday Times this week, one Conservative MP said of the Prime Minister’s intentions that he was keeping things up his sleeve, and that:
	“He’ll try to negotiate a lower net contribution to the budget.”
	It is definitely being said that the Prime Minister is holding that in reserve. Will the Minister comment on that?

David Gauke: We have consistently argued the case for money being spent more wisely and for greater European Union public spending restraint. We have already made
	progress with that argument—we made progress in 2013 and the Bill relates to the negotiation, although it is on the revenue rather than the expenditure side. We will consistently argue that case.

Mark Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is giving us a lot of his time. He mentions fiscal prudence and spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Two things that epitomise the wastefulness of the European Union are the Strasbourg circus—the waste of money moving the whole Parliament to Strasbourg—and the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for some two decades. The Prime Minister is working very hard to achieve fiscal prudence, but does the Minister agree that the mood around the whole EU is behind him in dealing with that? The problem is not unique to the UK. The Prime Minister has the wind in his sails and support from the rest of the EU to deal with those problems.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would perhaps go further: it is not just member states that recognise that things need to change and that there needs to be better value for money. Vice-President Georgieva, who has responsibility for the budget, also recognises the need to ensure that money is spent in a better way. The Prime Minister has consistently set out that there are two sensible objectives: to cut the whole budget and to protect the rebate. We will continue to make that case.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the Minister for giving way once again. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is not in his place, made a useful point about expressing our contributions in terms that the citizens will understand—contribution per head, per month or whatever. Would it not be useful to look at the expenditure side of, for instance, the common agricultural policy, and say how much that costs in net terms per head of population, and how much it has cost over many decades in higher food prices? People would be very interested to know that.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman draws me into deeper waters and wider issues. Perhaps I should resist, Mr Streeter, before you advise me not to spend too much time on the common agricultural policy and some of its costs. It is worth pointing out that the CAP as a proportion of expenditure by the EU is falling and has fallen fairly significantly. The hon. Gentleman’s point is about making things clearer and ensuring that the British public have a better understanding of where their money is spent. There is a wider point, because that does not apply only to EU contributions. I am sure that he and all hon. Members welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs sends out tax statements to the British public so that they can see details of where money is spent in various Government Departments and the details of the money spent on our net contribution to the EU.
	The scrutiny Committees of both Houses closely scrutinised and cleared the proposal for the new ORD, which was agreed unanimously by member states in May 2014. The Bill and the Prime Minister’s 2013 deal demonstrate that, working with allies, we can achieve change in Europe, and secure a good deal for the UK and for Europe. I commend the clauses to the House. They should stand part of the Bill.

Bill Cash: Will the Minister give way?

David Gauke: I will certainly give way, before I deal with the new clauses.

Bill Cash: I am happy to wait if the Minister wishes to deal with the new clauses. I will come back at that point.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and amendment 1, all tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), would require the Treasury to undertake a series of actions prior to the Act coming into force. New clause 1 would require the Treasury to inform both Houses that it has formally requested a review by the European Commission into alternative ways of running the EU budget and a comparative analysis of commitments and payments as the basis for appropriations for the budget. New clause 2 would require the Treasury to request a fundamental review by the Council of Ministers of EU budget priorities, waste and inefficiency. New clause 3 asks for the Chancellor to issue an invitation to the Commission to provide further details of the draft budget to scrutiny Committees. Amendment 1 would delete subsection (3) of clause 2, which would mean that the Act would not come into force until 14 days after the conditions specified in each new clause were met.
	We recognise the concerns underlying the amendments. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady will recall that the Bill relates exclusively to the financing of the EU budget, while the amendments relate to the separate, although equally important, issue of EU budget expenditure. On that basis alone, we reject them.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend talks clearly about financing and the details of various percentages going up or down. Does he recognise that what he is really talking about is setting the tone on the agreement we have in the European Union? The UK can play its part as a good partner in the EU, but the EU can help to play its own role in promoting what we all recognise is a growing economy in Europe, and not just a redistribution of wealth.

David Gauke: The deal that the Prime Minister reached in February 2013 was clearly a success, as our negotiating objectives were met. I am sure my hon. Friend and most of us would hope and expect similar success to be achieved in the months ahead.

Barbara Keeley: I invite the Minister to remind himself of a similar debate we had in January 2008, in which he and his hon. Friends on the then shadow Treasury team tabled a strikingly similar new clause that asked for a report on the review by the European Commission covering all aspects of EU spending. It was a very robust debate and he was a signatory to that new clause. He rejects my new clause, but it is very similar to the one he tabled in 2008.

David Gauke: I am tempted to point to the remarks made by the hon. Lady’s colleagues in setting out the reasons why that new clause should have been rejected. She might not have been persuaded, but I am tempted
	to say that six years on, after much reflection, I can see some value in them. The stronger argument I would perhaps make is that in contrast to what happened some years ago, when the previous Labour Government negotiated away part of our rebate, we have just had a successful negotiation in 2013. Let me set out the progress that is being made on that agenda. If I may, I will give a little detail on the substance, putting aside the point that the Bill focuses on the revenue, rather than the expenditure, side of things.

Bill Cash: On the reference in new clause 3 to
	“the relevant European affairs select committee in each House of Parliament”
	as my hon. Friend knows, the European Scrutiny Committee always goes through all the budgets, makes reports regularly and has the power to invite anybody, including officials from the European Commission. In addition, it receives explanatory memorandums from the Government—in fact, from the Minister himself. I would like to make some further remarks about this later, but I agree very much with what he says in rejecting the Opposition’s proposals.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Let me come straight to new clause 3, as he has raised that point.
	Along with many across Europe, we share the concern that lies behind new clause 3 that the EU is not sufficiently accountable to EU citizens. Hon. Members will need no reminding that the Prime Minister has already made it clear that strengthening the role of national Parliaments is a central tenet of his reform programme. Within the existing legal framework, the Government already take the role of national Parliaments in scrutinising EU proposals very seriously. That is why, when the European Parliament requested the formation of a high-level group on own resources to review the EU financing system, we insisted that national Parliaments, as well as the European institutions, were given a voice as part of the consultation. We therefore amended the joint declaration on the formation of the group explicitly to take account of input from national Parliaments.
	We do all we can to ensure the transparent and effective scrutiny of each year’s annual budget negotiations. An explanatory memorandum is deposited as soon as possible after the publication of the draft EU budget each year. That is followed by debates in both Houses and regular ministerial updates at significant stages of the negotiation process.
	We are committed to working with both scrutiny Committees to make this process as efficient and effective as possible for all parties. However, we believe that requiring the Government to write to invited officials to appear before the scrutiny Committees would add little to the scrutiny process and would be a very peculiar precedent, for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It would add little because the Committees can, and have, invited officials to appear before them. For example, in June 2014, Nadia Calvino, the Director-General of the European Commission budget, gave evidence to the Lords EU Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee.
	It really should not be the place of Government to determine who the scrutiny Committees should see. It is for the Committees of both Houses to decide for themselves who should appear before them and when. It would be a peculiar precedent for the Executive to begin to interfere with that freedom, no matter how benign the initial intention.

Barbara Keeley: I appreciate the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stone, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. In a debate in October 2012, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), speaking for the Government, complained strongly—I referred to this in a previous debate—that Ministers had asked the Commission to model costs of €5 billion, €10 billion and €15 billion in relation to staffing. That very reasonable request was bounced back with the very insulting comment:
	“We declined as it’s a lot of work and a waste of time for our staff who are busy with more urgent matters…we are better educated than national civil servants. We’re high fliers, not burger flippers”.
	If the Minister is expecting us to believe him, when such a simple request on a staffing issue is not taken seriously, then we do have some points to make.

David Gauke: I will return to that point. My remarks, when the hon. Lady intervened, were in respect of new clause 3 and the European Scrutiny Committee. I have been very clear that it would be a curious thing to do to place this in legislation and for the Executive to take that role upon themselves. I very much echo the remarks made on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

Bill Cash: Let me add one further point before I deal with the matter in substance. The European Scrutiny Committee’s most recent report, which in this respect has been accepted by the Government, recommended that each Committee, including the Treasury Committee, establish a rapporteur to consider these questions. We could effectively work with the Treasury Committee to ensure, if necessary, that there would be an even deeper examination of the Treasury aspects.

David Gauke: We obviously welcome scrutiny in this area. If the European Scrutiny Committee or other Committees seek the Government’s support, for example, in bringing over Commission officials to give evidence, the Government would of course gladly support them. Let me offer that hand of co-operation if I may, but I do not see a strong case for placing this within the legislation. Indeed, I would go further and say that it would be inappropriate for us to do so. That deals with new clause 3.
	We do not believe that the proposal, which would require the Government to write to various European institutions to invite them to undertake a review of one or other aspect of the EU budget, would really add to the work that the Government have undertaken and continue to undertake to improve the expenditure of the EU budget.

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) rightly highlighted the welcome reduction in the contribution, which is good news for my constituents in Charnwood, as it is for his. That was in stark contrast to
	results achieved in negotiations by previous Governments. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) mentioned, while the focus may be on revenue and not expenditure, it is important that the money is well spent. Will the Minister reassure me that he will continue to push the case for reform of how the EU spends money to ensure that it is well spent, well audited and that the accounts are signed off?

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. The answer to his question lies at the heart of our response to new clause 1. He raises an important point.
	New clause 1 requires the Government to write to the Commission to review the basis of appropriations for the EU budget to see whether “alternative arrangements” would provide better value for money. Although the link between appropriations and value for money is an important one, it is not of the first order. The Government’s first priority is to control spending directly, not through the system of appropriations. Cutting low-value expenditure is the first and most important way of improving the quality of EU spending.
	In delivering an historic real-terms cut to the budget, the Government took a decisive step. Within a smaller budget, we also made sure that expenditure was reoriented towards areas that provide higher value for money. Spending on the common agricultural policy will fall considerably as a proportion of the total budget, while spending on research and development and other pro-growth investment will increase. So it is possible to operate within the system of appropriations, if appropriate control is in place.
	The new clause none the less raises the question of whether the system of payments and commitments is appropriate for delivering value for money. It is a question that we must ask. It is true that it is an unusual budgeting system and it is not the way in which the UK Government budget. If the EU were starting from scratch, we would not advocate using that system. Yet I do not think anything would be gained by requesting a review of the system—for one simple and compelling reason. The proposed review in new clause 1 has already been set in motion by the new Budget Commissioner, Vice-President Georgieva, through her recent “budget for results” initiative. We obviously cannot say what the review will include, but its terms of reference are widely drawn, providing ample space to review the current budget system, including the system of appropriations, and to explore possible alternative approaches that would offer better value for money and improved financial management.
	The UK has publicly welcomed that initiative and has shared its expertise. The Chancellor has made it clear to other Finance Ministers during ECOFIN meetings that that is the UK’s position. The initiative will involve member states, the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.

Wes Streeting: I am grateful for that update, but perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government are going to do proactively in terms of their own priorities to deliver the value for money that he talks about, beyond the generalities that we have heard all morning about better value for money, better spending and better priorities. Can we have some specifics? How will the Government exert real influence on that important review?

David Gauke: The most important thing we can do is reduce the EU budget because that then focuses the mind of the European institutions to ensure that the money they are able to spend is prioritised in the right way. I come back to how the money is spent and the importance of focusing more on items that will help ensure a more dynamic European economy—more on research and development, for example—and proportionately less on the common agricultural policy. That is something that all hon. Members should support. That has been achieved.

Graham Jones: I think the Minister has answered my question. It was about the common agricultural policy, and he has just walked into the answer.

David Gauke: Walked into it? I ran with enthusiasm into the answer, and I am glad that I anticipated the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Minister for generously giving way to me a second time. Does he agree that the European Commission did not propose a single euro of savings when the negotiations started, so it would be strange to ask it to conduct the review to secure better value for money, as the new clause demands? In essence we would be asking the poacher to review how the poaching is getting on.

David Gauke: I take my hon. Friend’s point. We are, I hope, moving in the right direction. The new Commission has been in place for the past few months or so, and the early signs are—I shall return to the point—that it appears to be more focused on the task. I think there is a link: there was a reduction in the EU budget, which has somewhat focused the mind.

Kelvin Hopkins: Following what the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has said, would it not be sensible and appropriate for our Government to carry out a comprehensive review of how we think the budget should operate, and make that a firm public submission, whatever is undertaken by the EU itself?

David Gauke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which he makes in a characteristically constructive way. Clearly, it is important for us to work with other like-minded member states to ensure that we get the focus we need and the prioritisation of expenditure in the areas that add the most value. There are different ways of achieving that, and we can discuss that. It is only fair to note, however, that some progress has been made, as I shall touch on in a few moments.
	New clause 2 imposes a requirement on the Government to request a review by the Council of Ministers of the EU
	“budget priorities, waste and inefficiency”
	in advance of ratification. The new clause relates not to financing, but to expenditure, so I again point out that we will reject it. Although the Government recognise the need to cut down on wasteful spending, requiring the Government to write and ask for a review of waste and inefficiency would add little to what the Government are already doing in this area. We know that there is
	waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. We need action, not words—and action is what the Government have taken. Our most important step has been to cut the EU budget. Just as Governments across Europe are making tough decisions to consolidate public finances, the multi-annual financial framework deal negotiated by the Prime Minister has forced the EU to make tough decisions to bear down on waste and to economise. By imposing restraint on the EU budget, we can create a culture change in the Commission. The days of Commission officials measuring their success by how much of the budget they have been able to spend should be behind us.

Peter Grant: I could understand the Government’s reluctance to incorporate the amendments in legislation if they did not deal strictly with the narrow interpretation of the Bill, but in view of what they ask the Government to do, I cannot see why the Government should be reluctant to take any of those actions. Why do they not simply give an undertaking to do so? Then we would not need the amendments, and we could all agree on something.

David Gauke: In the case of new clause 2, which relates to how we deal with the way in which the Council of Ministers works, we are making progress and taking action, which includes cutting the budget. In the case of new clause 1, I do not need to undertake to write a letter calling for the Commission to do something that it is already doing. As for new clause 3. I have already made it clear that I do not think it would be appropriate for us to impose on members of the European Scrutiny Committee something that is a matter for them.

Barbara Keeley: I am slightly surprised that the Minister is unable to take on board what was actually a very sensible suggestion. He says that overall budget restraint is sufficient, and that there is no need for a focus on “waste and inefficiency”. As I mentioned earlier, back in 2012, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells tried to introduce measures to reduce the staffing budget and asked for modelling, but that request was rejected. Commission representatives should not feel that they can bounce back to UK Ministers simple requests that really would help decision making.
	Time and again, Members on both sides of the House raise issues relating to the Commission’s staffing costs. If that is the response that the Minister has been receiving—he is not admitting it today, but the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned it during another debate—we really must press the matter. It is not good enough simply to accept that everything is fine and we do not have a problem. We must push the case for enhanced scrutiny.

David Gauke: We care a great deal about eliminating waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The question is how we should do that. Let me say first that, if we can reduce the MFF, that will place a much greater onus on the Commission to eliminate wasteful expenditure.
	The hon. Lady made a perfectly fair point about what happened back in 2012. However, the Prime Minister’s negotiation triumph in 2013 has reduced the MFF, and we are now seeing signs—which we were not seeing
	three years ago—that the Commission is focusing much more on the issue. Vice-President Georgieva described the 2015 budget, which was agreed last December, as
	“a budget of responsibility… a tight budget that reflects the tight fiscal conditions in our Member States.”
	She said that it was
	“a very focused budget, focused on the priorities that we have established in the new Commission.”
	She added:
	“It is directed towards investments in competitiveness, for instance supporting the innovative nature of our businesses. It is also a budget where tight controls on spending will allow us to achieve the best possible results.”
	Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which focuses on better rather than more spending, has come about as a direct result of the imposition of restraint at the top. The United Kingdom is engaging constructively with the initiative, and is working actively with the Commission to ensure that momentum is maintained through regular meetings at political and technical levels. We are working with our allies to increase support for the initiative and to ensure that all member states are represented in discussions. We look forward to the first meeting of the inter-institutional working group in mid-July and to contributing to the “budget for results” conference in September.
	Because of what we have achieved in reducing the budget, we are seeing a culture change, but we need to ensure that the momentum is maintained. If the Labour party supports that, I am delighted, but we must remember that it was Labour that surrendered part of our rebate and failed to impose the discipline that we needed.

Barbara Keeley: Again, I am surprised by the Minister’s response. Let me remind him of a point that I made on Second Reading. When Labour Members voted with rebels in the Conservative party, they strengthened the Prime Minister’s hand before he went into negotiations by insisting that the MFF be cut. The Minister really ought to acknowledge that. Surely it helps if, on every occasion, Members in all parts of the House can be strong in saying that we want enhanced scrutiny, and that is what we are trying to do through our new clauses today.

David Gauke: I cannot but throw back the record of the Labour Government in that regard.

James Cartlidge: It is difficult to listen to what Labour Members are saying about new clause 2 without remembering what happened when they were in government in the United Kingdom. Let us not forget the huge increase in the number of people they employed, including outreach workers and people with non-jobs. Given the vast inefficiency and waste of all those years, it seems a bit rich for Labour Members to expect us to take lectures on the subject.

David Gauke: That is a very good point. However, you would not wish me to be detained too long, Mr Streeter, by the fact that various candidates for the leadership of the Labour party appear to be recognising that too much money was spent before the crash, and that not all of it was spent in an efficient manner.

Carolyn Harris: rose—

David Gauke: I give way to the hon. Lady, who may share that view.

Carolyn Harris: Does the Minister believe that enough is being done to ensure the transparency of budget decisions that are made at EU level?

David Gauke: The hon. Lady has asked a good question. In the context of the review that the Commission is undertaking and the focus on a budget for results, transparency is certainly important. The Government’s record is clear: we want more transparency in relation to all expenditure, whether at UK or EU level, and I think that more can be done in that regard.
	The hon. Member for Worsley made an important point about administrative expenditure. As part of the MFF deal, EU staff salaries were frozen in 2013-14, and EU institutions committed themselves to a 5% headcount reduction by 2017 and an increase in statutory pension age to 66 for officials who started work in or after 2014. I would be the first to accept that those reforms do not go far enough, but, working with like-minded member states, the Government will continue to press the EU institutions to show maximum restraint when it comes to administrative expenditure.

Barbara Keeley: Are this Minister and other Ministers having more success than their right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) had back in 2012, when the European Commission dismissed his very reasonable request for some modelling on staffing costs? Are the Commissioners being any more helpful nowadays?

David Gauke: Some progress has been made since then. The Commission has improved its transparency record, partly thanks to the Government’s ongoing work. In particular, it released a payments plan containing much more detail on payment forecasts. I accept that we can go further, and that UK citizens expect more, but requiring the Government to write a letter inviting officials to attend Select Committee meetings will not really deliver that. What is required is constant vigilance and discipline. We have shown that, and it is delivering results.

Bill Cash: Earlier, the hon. Member for Worsley raised the question of how the proposals for budget reduction came about. As I am sure the Minister remembers only too well, I was one of the so-called rebels, although actually we were not really rebels at all: all that we were doing was asking the Government to listen, which is exactly what happened, because our amendments were accepted. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury—or perhaps the Economic Secretary—paid tribute to us for having presented the proposals, and everything was hunky-dory.

David Gauke: I am grateful for the constructive tone that my hon. Friend brings to the debate; he has a history of so doing. He has argued for greater efficiency and transparency in the expenditure of the European Union for many years, and I am grateful to him for that.
	I should also point out that we are providing technical assistance to the Commission as it considers all the options for enhancing performance on the budget.
	We are sharing our expertise in areas such as value for money, spending area objectives and improving budgetary performance—for example by removing adverse incentives and improving accountability and transparency.

Luke Hall: My constituents were aghast when the previous Labour Government gave away our rebate. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will ensure that there will be no further such concessions as long as this party is in power?

David Gauke: I am more than happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. When we debate the scrutiny of expenditure, it is worth bearing it in mind that allowing us to make a bigger contribution than we otherwise would involves a cost to the UK taxpayer. The fact that budgets were allowed to increase significantly also means that the focus on getting value for money could be lost. If we are to eliminate wasteful expenditure, it is important that we bear down on the overall budget, because that has a big impact. That is a clear area of difference—if I may put it that way—between the two parties. We have placed a consistent focus on controlling expenditure, whether at UK or EU level.
	The next opportunity to look wholesale at the priorities of the EU budget will be the mid-term review of the MFF. That review is required under the agreement reached on the MFF, and it must take place by 2016. The Opposition’s calls for a review appear to add little to the review that is already planned. The Government will engage constructively with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to look at further ways in which spending can be improved.
	In the meantime, the Government are taking every opportunity to bear down on wasteful spending and to highlight it where it is identified. That is reflected in our having voted against the discharge or approval of the EU budget for the past four years. Until the European Court of Auditors is able to give a positive statement of assurance on the EU accounts, we will continue to work with allies in calling on the Commission to do better. I note that this position is not the one that the previous Labour Government took.
	Together with our allies, Sweden and the Netherlands, we have issued a joint counter-statement calling on the Commission and member states to take proactive steps to reduce the level of error in the EU accounts by simplifying regulatory frameworks and increasing the training and guidance available to national officials. By supporting the European Court of Auditors’ calls for more focus on performance and added value in the EU budget, we have helped to change the Commission’s focus from compliance to results.
	The Government are also playing their part in the work being undertaken to simplify the rules governing the implementation of structural funds. In the past, the Commission’s focus has too often been on compliance, fostering a tick-box culture with little care for performance. A structural fund simplification agenda was launched earlier this month by Commissioner Cretu, and those involved will meet for the first time next month. The budget for results initiative, to which I have already referred, will provide another valuable opportunity for this Government to continue to insist on maximum efficiency and results in relation to EU spending.
	Of course, we are also keeping up the pressure on the Commission in the annual budget negotiations and in response to in-year requests for more funding. We have a strong track record of pushing back against draft amending budgets, to ensure that value-for-money criteria are met, and we regularly challenge the Commission to identify opportunities for reallocation rather than coming to member states with requests for more money. The Government are constructively engaging with the work that I have outlined, in order to ensure the best possible deal for the United Kingdom.

John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend seen the work of the so-called five presidents of the euro area, which sets out how they wish to press for full fiscal union, with a euro Treasury and a euro budget under central control. Will he assure the Committee that we will have nothing to do with any of that?

David Gauke: Yes; my right hon. Friend makes an important point about the euro area. No doubt he will have heard the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Mansion House a couple of weeks ago, in which he made it clear that one of our priorities in the UK’s negotiations ahead of any referendum will be to ensure that the “euro-outs”—the European Union member states that are not in the eurozone—are properly protected and do not find themselves disadvantaged by the eurozone countries working together to the disadvantage of the “euro-outs”. That is a real priority for the United Kingdom.

Bill Cash: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates the difficulties inherent in this matter. It is all very well to want to disaggregate the eurozone from the non-euro member states, but the reality is that we are all part of the same European Union. Any attempt to make a change of this kind would involve a fundamental change to our relationship with the EU and would therefore require a treaty change by any reasonable standards. Does he appreciate how serious the position would be if we neither sought nor achieved that objective?

David Gauke: It is important that we meet that objective.
	On the subject of the report, I would make the point that we benefit from the single market and do not want to stand in the way of the eurozone resolving its difficulties, but we will not let the integration of the eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the single market or disadvantage the United Kingdom in any way. That is one the important objectives in our negotiation with the European Union, and it is exactly the point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making in his Mansion House speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) are right to raise the importance of this point, which we fully recognise.

John Redwood: The five presidents’ press release and work programme, which will result in a White Paper, are about taking over the European Union budget and using it for transfers throughout the eurozone. Clearly, Britain does not want to be part of that. I was asking the Minister about the budget, not about single market regulations.

David Gauke: The point about our position applies across the piece. To be fair to my right hon. Friend, certain eventualities that he predicted many years ago have come to pass. Because of the current situation in the eurozone, substantial reform could well be needed so that the members of the single currency are able to co-ordinate fiscal policy to a greater extent, with greater fiscal transfers and so on. That raises issues for the eurozone members which do not apply to other members of the European Union that have access to the single market but would not wish to partake in any such arrangement. We would need to ensure that if that is the direction the eurozone goes in, the position of the euro-outs is protected. Ensuring that access to the single market remains in place for all 28 member states is an important part of that, which is why I mentioned it. We need to ensure that our position is protected. That is the point I wish to make, and I fully understand the points that my right hon. Friend is making.
	Finally, amendment 1 has been proposed in order that the conditions set out in new clauses 1, 2 and 3 are consistent with the terms of commencement in the Bill. I have explained to the Committee why we will not be supporting the new clauses, and we thus reject the amendment. While I have the opportunity to do so, I wish to identify a typographical error in the explanatory notes. The second line of paragraph 6 refers to a VAT-based rate of call of 15% for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, whereas it should have read 0.15%. I draw the Committee’s attention to that in case it caused consternation among right hon. and hon. Members.
	In conclusion, let me assure the hon. Member for Worsley that, having made important progress in 2013, this Government are focused on ensuring maximum restraint, budgetary control, value for money and transparency in EU spending. I therefore welcome the spirit of her proposals, but requiring the Government to request that the Commission or the Council of Ministers review these issues adds little to the real work that has been done and continues to be done to improve the working of the EU budget. That work began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, which cut the budget in real terms and protected the current system of financing—we should not forget that that is what this Bill is about. That work continues through the budget for results, through the Government’s continued engagement on the annual budget and through the discharge of the budget, and it will continue during the mid-term review of the MFF.
	With those few, brief introductory remarks, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her proposals to a Division and I urge hon. Members to support the clauses set out in the Bill.

Barbara Keeley: Before we go any further, may I point out that my constituency is now called Worsley and Eccles South? The people of Eccles would rightly be very upset if we left them out of the equation; Eccles is a very important town in my constituency.
	I rise to speak to the new clauses standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are dealing with a slight complexity, in that the Bill is simple but drafted in such a way as to make it complex to amend. Amendment 1 is therefore a technical paving amendment which can bring in the new clauses, so it is that amendment that we will push to a vote, if necessary.
	The Bill relates to agreement of the own resources decision that will be incorporated into UK law, based on the agreement reached at the February 2013 European Council. The Minister covered that at great length over the past hour and 20 or so minutes. Decisions on UK contributions reaching €14 billion are brought into sharper focus in a week when Ministers are discussing cuts to tax credits for the low-paid and have not been prepared to rule out cuts to financial support for disabled people. We find ourselves in a serious and austere financial context, so we must ensure that we look at every aspect of value for money, budgetary control and the reform of priorities within the EU budget.
	When we debated the MFF in this House in October 2012, the Government’s motion talked about agreeing that we must see
	“significant improvements in the financial management of EU resources by the Commission and by Member States and significant improvements in the value for money of spend”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 295.]
	The last debate contained many examples, some of which I shall refer to, showing that we are not there yet. I am sure the Minister would agree, so what we are simply trying to do with the new clauses is find ways in which we can enhance value for money assessments, budgetary control and the reform of priorities. That is very important to many of the Members in the Committee today and to Members throughout the House.
	The proposals standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends will assist greatly in ensuring that reports are made to this House on value for money and budgetary control, and on budget priorities and waste and inefficiency within the EU budget. Examples have been given in interventions that give us an understanding of the extent of concerns about this out in the country—which we explored on Second Reading—and those can only increase.

Thomas Tugendhat: Would the hon. Lady let me know which of her hon. Friends are so supportive of her? There appears to be somewhat of a dearth of support.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barbara Keeley: I will.

Kelvin Hopkins: I rise to assure my hon. Friend that I am supporting her very strongly today.

Barbara Keeley: I think the hon. Gentleman will see when we come to the vote that we do have support.
	Our new clause 3 would also improve accountability and transparency by inviting EU budget representatives to appear before the European Scrutiny Committees in this House and the other place each year before the EU budgets are negotiated. I appreciate the points made by Conservative Members that of course there should be no interference with the work of the European Scrutiny Committee in this House, but what we have tried to do in these new clauses is send the strongest statement we can send and give the strongest possible support to all those in this House who want to see these important aspects of value for money and budgetary control put in place.

Bill Cash: I am sure the hon. Lady would appreciate the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee functions by virtue of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Leaving aside the merits of this
	proposal, if there were to be a stream of requirements imposed by Parliament on the manner in which the European Scrutiny Committee, an all-party Committee containing many Labour Members, were to conduct its business, the life of the Committee would be made pretty intolerable and its purpose would probably be undermined.

Barbara Keeley: I very much take that point on board.
	New clause 1 requests a review by the European Commission of the basis of appropriations for the European Union budget and a study of whether alternative arrangements might offer improved value and enhanced budgetary control. On Second Reading, I highlighted a concern about the growing gap between the ceiling on spending commitments and the ceiling on payments. That gap, as agreed in the settlement of February 2013, is between €960 billion on commitments and €908 billion on payments. As I pointed out in the earlier debate, that gap has crept up from an average of 2.6% to the current 5.4%, and it is projected to rise to 5.7% in the period from 2014 to 2020. We must now seriously question whether that gap is manageable.
	The Commission describes the system as follows:
	“Commitments are tomorrow’s payments, and payments are yesterday’s commitments. Commitments are planned future payments whereas payments are legal obligations from the past…if every year the increase in commitments is much higher than that in payments you end up promising many partners to pay their future bills but find yourself unable to pay those bills when they arrive years later.
	This is what has been happening over the last years: as many commitments were made years ago for projects that are being completed now”.
	That is a key issue with the drive to smaller EU budgets, yet, as the Commission says,
	“many bills related to projects remain unpaid and have to be rolled over to the following year. This leaves no choice to the Commission but to call for increases in payments.”

John Redwood: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about the need to get better value for money in a smaller budget and to bring down the commitments. Does she have some individual proposals on things that could be taken out of the EU budget for which the Government should argue?

Barbara Keeley: I think that we could get to that if we had the information in the review that I am calling for, but what I want first is an examination of the system. This system is a recipe to drive up budgets rather than a way to control them.
	Commitments are being made at a level of up to €14 billion a year more than payments. We have had years when the commitments have been €14 billion more, and that means bills being rolled forward, or staying unpaid, which is unacceptable. It is not a sensible system, and I think that the Minister actually acknowledged that. If it is not a sensible system, we should not be going along with it.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is making a fair point. It has been suggested that, in real terms, we should be paying 7% less into the European Union
	budget by—I think—2020. Given what she has just said, is it not likely that that will not turn out to be true, and we will not see a reduction of that kind?

Barbara Keeley: Indeed, that is a very real fear. If we look down the list of commitments and compare it with the payments made, we will see the level of commitments that are still to roll forward, which is a very frightening prospect. I go back to the point that I have just made. This is a system designed to drive up budgets. We support what has taken place and recognise that the House voted for it back in 2012, but unless this system changes we will be in a situation in which commitments are being made in the period up to 2020 of €960 billion, which is €52 billion more. It is a serious matter. Clearly, it is serious if the Commission is taking on budgets and then not paying bills, but it is the upward pressure on the budget process that is the great concern.
	In our last debate on this Bill, the hon. Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove), for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to a range of concerns that their constituents had about EU finance, how the EU budget is spent and the need for control of the budget. That is a point to which we will keep returning.
	In the debate of 15 January 2008 on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill—I have already mentioned this—the Financial Secretary, then shadow Treasury Minister, and his shadow Treasury colleagues called for a report on “all aspects of EU spending”. Clearly, both the Opposition then and the current Opposition have had concerns about this. The Minister and his colleagues called for that report in 2008. I hope that we still have time in the rest of this debate for him to repent his view that we do not need further reviews.
	As I have mentioned, there were complications in the wording of the amendment in 2008. I have read through the debate. The difficulty that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the shadow Treasury team at that time ran into was that the amendment called for Treasury certification that it
	“considers the outcome of the review is satisfactory to the interests of the United Kingdom”.
	That seemed to be the sticking point. We have avoided such complications in this Bill by tabling simpler amendments that ask for an analysis of the basis used for appropriations and the study of alternative arrangements.
	The Minister has said that such a review is ongoing. Will he tell me at this point when we will see that review?

David Gauke: On the timing, we are expecting it in 2016.

Barbara Keeley: Will he clarify at which point in 2016? [Interruption.] No, it is just some time in 2016.

Alex Salmond: Will it be before or after the referendum?

Peter Grant: During.

Barbara Keeley: The Minister can hear the comments being made by Members from sedentary positions. Clearly, we are working through a crucial time in the run-up to
	the referendum, and the budgetary information, with all the decisions that have to be made, will be crucial for the people out there.
	In our amendments, we have expressed the wish to have these reviews and the reports. We want to send out the message that this House is serious about scrutinising the EU budget.
	At the end of our debate on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary talked about the need for scrutiny on the payment gap. She told us that the European Commission has committed to publish more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming an enhanced level of information on the EU budget, but believe that much more needs to be done on that. Does the Minister agree now—after both of us have spoken on the matter—that it is time that the EU moved away from a system in which it can make commitments of billions of euros more than it can pay, creating pressure on member states to ever-increasing budgets?
	New clause 2 calls for a reform of the priorities in the EU budget, and specifically requests a review by the Council of Ministers of budget priorities and waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The Minister has mentioned reviews that are already taking place, but I do not think that he mentioned a review of priorities of the kind that our new clause invites.
	On Second Reading, I raised the need for further reform of budget priorities. Labour believes that expenditure on growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending.
	The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that overall spending on the common agricultural policy will fall by 13%, compared with the last financial period, and that spending on research and development will increase by 4%. As welcome as that fall in agriculture spending is, we believe that the level of spending is still too high compared with spending to support growth and jobs. The Minister has responded to points made by his own side today, but he has not really got to the nub of the point.
	As I said on Second Reading, agriculture accounts for only 1.6% of the European Union’s total output. If that is the case—I think that we will keep returning to this point—is it still appropriate that it accounts for 30% to 40% of the budget?

Alex Salmond: Is the hon. Lady saying that, in the opinion of the Labour party, agricultural support and spending are too low in Wales?

Barbara Keeley: I am not making that point in particular. What we are asking for in this clause is a review of budget priorities. We can see from the percentages that competitiveness for jobs and growth is the most important. I am not making specific points about specific countries. Under the new method of agricultural spending, I think that there is a great deal of flexibility for allocating the funding between countries.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend made a very strong point about the CAP. If there were no CAP, would it not be sensible for us to subsidise sections of our own agriculture according to what we think is right rather than what the European Union thinks is right?

Barbara Keeley: Indeed we could. Let me go on and make a few more points about the proportion that is allocated to that very important priority of competitiveness for jobs and growth. In 2014, only around €15 billion will be spent by the EU on that budget priority compared with over €41 billion for market-related spending and direct payments for agriculture. There is no sense in a system that takes that vital priority—vital for every part of the EU—of competitiveness for jobs and growth and spends so little on it. Out of the €6.3 billion of European Union funding allocated to the UK in 2013, only 23% was spending on jobs and growth compared with 63% on agriculture. It is the balance that we are calling into account.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said on Second Reading, although the proportion of the budget for agriculture has been falling, there has been a fairly significant increase in money terms over the past eight years. As long as this balance seems wrong to people, it will be very hard for many of us to explain on the doorstep why we are spending only 23% of European Union funding in the UK on jobs and growth but 63% on agriculture. Some hon. Members might find such an explanation easier in their constituencies than others, but it is a difficult argument.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. My one concern would be that if there are reforms, they do not disadvantage some farmers in North East Somerset and other rural constituencies to favour spending on the continent. Reform is quite right, but it needs to be fair for the United Kingdom’s farmers.

Barbara Keeley: The more reviews that we carry out of those priorities, the more that we develop our understanding of where the money is going. Earlier, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) called for these matters to be discussed in a language that his constituents could understand, and I do not think that they are discussed in such a way. Having ploughed through very many debates and very many documents in relation to the Bill, I do not think that those matters are understood. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
	The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted that expenditure on the CAP is
	“still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1426.]
	If that is what the Treasury team currently feel—that it is still too high, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget—what are we doing to understand that better, to review it and to change it?
	It is my assertion that previous reviews have not led to the level of reform that we want to achieve. It was our purpose in tabling new clause 2 to keep focus on that vital issue. When most member states are finding it necessary to make very difficult decisions—clearly, we are in that position ourselves—about their own budgets and spending, the European Union must ensure that expenditure is efficient and focused on addressing the major concerns that member states face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the October 2012 debate:
	“The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies.”
	As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is much needed when we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK looking for work. That should be our focus—those young people.
	We need a better balance of funding and we need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve growth and jobs. Looking deeper into the detail, and the spending commitment to the EU’s smart and inclusive growth priority, only a quarter of that is spent on competitiveness for jobs and growth, and three quarters on the EU’s cohesion policies, including structural funds. It probably is not appropriate today to open up further debate about the use of structural funds. That is often discussed when we are discussing EU finance, but as my hon. Friend also said:
	“Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that…are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]
	The Opposition say strongly that the proportion of the EU’s smart and inclusive growth expenditure that goes towards securing competitiveness for jobs and growth is too small. That important area of spending accounts for around a quarter of the EU budget in 2014, but that rises to only 27% across the whole six-year period.

Bill Cash: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that much of what she says in terms of generalities is understandable, and is reflected very much in European Commission documents, which I have been looking at for the last 30 years, one way and another, on the European Scrutiny Committee, but that the inherent problem is the fact that every time there is a need to argue for jobs and growth, the answer from the European Commission is to give more subsidies, more bail-outs, and more cohesion and structural funds, when actually what is needed is deregulation and to provide people with a means of increasing productivity and jobs and to deal with youth unemployment?

Barbara Keeley: I hesitate to say that I think we agree on this point, but I think we do. [Interruption.] All right, then: we enthusiastically agree on this point. It is very clear indeed that, particularly with youth unemployment, we have a serious problem. It is a problem throughout the EU. We must spend more on that and we must find a way of doing so. Although the Minister spoke at great length, he did not tell us at any point what the difference would be between the ongoing review in the EU and the existing commitments. We want to send a very strong message. Until the Bill is passed, it is our last chance for a considerable period to make these points strongly to the EU, and we believe that we should do so.

Jim Shannon: One issue that concerns me in the area that I represent is the fishing industry. There is to be a review of the common fisheries policy. One thing that could come off the back of that is our young people getting jobs in the boats, because up until now they have not been encouraged to do so.
	We need not just a better common fisheries policy, but encouragement and incentives for our young people to take the jobs in the local fishing boats, and thereby create employment and prosperity for them as well. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Barbara Keeley: Indeed. We have focused a great deal on agricultural spending and the CAP, but I do not think any of us would say that there has been a fair deal for people in the fishing industry. Fisheries policy, in many places, has been a disaster and has caused great problems for our fishing industry. It is a shame and a pity if, as I think is the case, young people no longer believe that they can have a career in fisheries.

Alex Salmond: Given that many people who represent fishing constituencies would agree with the hon. Lady on that point, does she not find it passing strange that in all of the possible treaty amendments that have been listed as possibilities for the Prime Minister’s soon-to-be-considered renegotiation stance, not once have I heard from the Government Front Bench that a treaty renegotiation on the common fisheries policy is any part of the Conservative party’s priorities?

Barbara Keeley: That is strange, but I cannot answer for the Minister. He may want to intervene for himself now or at some later point.
	I have emphasised jobs and growth, but this EU budget priority also includes policies and programmes to promote vital areas of research and innovation—infrastructure, education, training and enterprise development. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has been a staunch advocate of the importance of EU funding for research and development in the UK. In 2012 he said:
	“The more the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits, because the quality, breadth and depth of UK research puts us in a position whereby we gain disproportionately from European research programmes.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 292.]
	It is self-evident that competitiveness for jobs and growth should be more of a priority, but also that we would benefit more if the priorities were switched to increase funding for research and innovation.
	Serious consideration of reform of the EU’s spending priorities is needed if we are to use the EU budget, as the Opposition believe we should, as a mechanism to promote future jobs and growth in the UK and other member states. We can only get that change of spending priorities if we keep a focus on the balance between competing priorities and continue to drive down wasteful and inefficient spending.
	Much was said on Second Reading, as I am sure the Minister recalls, about what hon. Members consider to be wasteful and inefficient spending. Some Members might cover that again today, but we have already talked about staffing costs and administration costs, and the costs of the move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Other items of waste and inefficiency can also be drawn to the Minister’s attention.
	We have already discussed new clause 3, and I do not need to keep on emphasising this, but in tabling it we did not in any way want to disturb the balance between
	the Government and the scrutiny Committees. I hope that hon. Members accept that. However, points have been raised in previous debates on why we need that relentless scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said in the debate on the multi-annual financial framework that we need
	“a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]
	The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on Second Reading:
	“Many in Europe agree with us that the EU is too uncompetitive, too democratically unaccountable and too inflexible to the concerns of citizens in its member states.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1389.]
	That is a very poor situation that we find ourselves in.

Bill Cash: The hon. Lady referred to the need for relentless scrutiny. I have a thought in my mind that maybe some people think that the European Scrutiny Committee, at least over the last five years, has indeed been relentless in its scrutiny, and that goes for all members of the Committee, which has produced many unanimous reports. Is she effectively prepared not to press her amendment because of the problem I gave about the constant stream of legislative requirements that might interfere with our status as a European Committee?

Barbara Keeley: Indeed, we could do that. We would definitely want to press the other new clauses, but there was no intention to upset that balance. It has been suggested that the Minister could solve these matters by giving some kind of undertaking on the matters raised in our new clauses. We do not resile from the position that we want to send out the strongest possible message from this House that we are serious about scrutiny. The European Scrutiny Committee is of course relentless in its focus on those matters, and so too must the House be relentless. Doubtless we will have many more reports and reviews.
	When in opposition, the Minister was part of the team that tabled an amendment to get a report, as I mentioned earlier. It was not agreed to at the time, but the Commission review went ahead anyway. The results of that report, which was published in 2010, were interesting. Its main finding—it was a very substantial finding—was that the current rules for the EU budget make it slow to react to unforeseen events, while too many complexities hinder its efficiency and transparency.
	This is a week of tumultuous events for the European Union. The situation we find ourselves in with the EU budget, with its complexity, its slowness to react, the difficulty in balancing priorities and the fact that it does not represent the priorities that we think are important, means that it is clear to all—there is often broad agreement on this in the House, and I am sure that there will be today—that it is past the time when it needs to change.
	Our remaining amendments would assist in ensuring that reports are made to the House on value for money, budgetary control and, importantly, budget priorities and waste and inefficiency. I commend them to the Committee.

Bill Cash: I have already said much of what I need to say on new clause 3, which is my main concern today, so I will make only a few points. Basically, new clause 3 is inappropriate. The European Scrutiny Committee
	does its job relentlessly, as the shadow Minister has just indicated, so there is no need for the new clause. We can invite officials to it if we wish to, and we do on occasion, but we are perpetually scrutinising the budget and recommending matters for consideration on the Floor of the House.
	Imposing on the European Scrutiny Committee legislative functions that would be monitored by other Government Departments could cause enormous difficulty by interfering with its Standing Orders functions. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee has to form a judgment on what is of political and legal importance. We can invite European Commission budget representatives to see us, and indeed we can also recommend to the Treasury Committee, for example, that it might wish to do the same, so we already have various means at our disposal.
	It is not necessary for me to repeat the points that I have already made in interventions. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for agreeing not to press new clause 3 and putting that on the record, so that in future nobody else is tempted to impose on the European Scrutiny Committee, or indeed on any Select Committee, legislative requirements that might in one way or another interfere with their discretionary judgments under the Standing Orders.

Barbara Keeley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we have no intention of doing that, but I also hope that he will agree that it is important to send out the strongest possible message that we are focusing on these matters relentlessly throughout the House, and that the European Scrutiny Committee will continue its excellent work.

Bill Cash: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not mind my mentioning the fact that she is sitting in glorious isolation on the Opposition Front Bench, and with nobody behind her, other than my friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not known to be enthusiastic about all matters European. Perhaps the relentless scrutiny to which she refers could be improved by having a few more Labour Members here to support her.

Alex Salmond: It is a great pleasure to follow what must be the briefest speech I have ever heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on this subject—it is wonderful to see him able once again to stand in his place today.
	Let me turn to the question of EU finance and agriculture. I know that agriculture is not a subject that much concerns the Conservative party; the Tory party these days is much more likely to be concerned with asset stripping, rather than agricultural production, and with financial derivatives, rather than agricultural crops—that is what gets its pulse moving.
	I was concerned when the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said that far too much of the European Union budget was consumed by the common agricultural policy. The fundamental reason for that—we did not hear this simple point from the Government Benches—is that the common agricultural policy is one of the few policies that financially is effectively under the competence of the European Union. If the European Union had competence over health, for example—I doubt that there is much support for that,
	from me or anyone else in the House—its agricultural budget would be totally dwarfed by what it spent on health. The dominance of the agricultural budget is a factor of its being one of the European Union’s relatively few common policies.
	Of course, it is possible to argue that there should not be direct farm payments. Indeed, that was the argument that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) took into the CAP negotiations. He started from the position that the UK Government, without much opposition from Members from rural constituencies in the Conservative interest, thought that there should not be direct farm payments, and he found himself in a minority of one in the negotiations; his position was not supported by any other member state. It was therefore decided that we were to continue with farm payments. Therefore, if we have a common agricultural policy, and it is a substantial part of the European Union’s budget, it is reasonably important to ensure that our share of the agricultural budget as component nations in these islands is fair and competitive, because our agricultural production has to compete in that common market with that in other member states.
	Does the Minister really think that the share allocated to UK agriculture, and to Scottish agriculture in particular, can be counted as a considerable achievement, as he claimed in his opening remarks? Let us remind ourselves of some of the facts. Under pillar one of the CAP budget, it was agreed that the lowest that any member state should receive in support was €196 per hectare. It was agreed in negotiations that each country in the original 15 would work to that minimum. Scotland receives substantially less than that—just over half of that payment per hectare. That is going to cost Scottish agriculture about £1 billion in the period to 2019.

Mark Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position during the Minister’s speech that that was because Scottish farms are the biggest in the UK. It would be helpful if he could give a little flavour of the size of Scottish farms compared with English, Welsh and Irish farms, and how the numbers break down.

Alex Salmond: I was going to move on to that very point, because the Minister’s reply to my intervention inspired me to go to the Library in search of some figures. I will answer that point in a moment.
	Let me move on to pillar two, the second major aspect of agricultural support. I have been doing some comparisons and looked at what would have happened if in negotiations Scotland had achieved from pillar two the same amount of agricultural support as the Republic of Ireland, which in many ways is a comparable country with regard to land area and agriculture as a share of the overall economy. The answer is that Ireland has achieved a budget four times the size of Scotland’s budget under pillar two—€2.19 billion compared with €478 million—in the years to 2019.
	Given that it has been decided that the common agricultural policy should continue and that farm payments should continue to be made, how will it be possible for Scottish agriculture to compete effectively when it gets such a dramatically lower share than the minimum
	allocated to any other EU country? Far from getting an excellent deal on pillar two to compensate for the poor deal on pillar one, Scotland gets a miserable share in comparison with comparable countries.
	That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The Minister said that the comparison of support per hectare does not really matter. I would say that it is exactly what matters, given that agreements per hectare, per country govern the size of the overall budget.
	As the Minister said, for the share per farm or per estate, there is a different figure and a different comparison. We have some very large farms and very large estates in Scotland. Indeed—this is the point that I was checking in the Library—500 companies or individuals own half of the country. That is how imbalanced is the concentration of ownership in Scottish agriculture and Scottish land. If someone is receiving a lower payment per hectare, that tends to favour and militate for even further concentration of land ownership.
	I took the Minister’s reply to me, when he alighted on a very significant point, as a coded call for the fairer distribution of land ownership in Scotland. I was inspired to look at an article in an edition of The Spectator only last month entitled “David Cameron’s father in law offers to adopt a ‘Rob Roy’ style Scottish accent to stop ‘Mugabe-style’ land grab by SNP”. In that article, Viscount Astor, presumably in The Spectator to get to the wide audience that the Conservative party was after in this European debate, was extremely suspicious of the SNP Scottish Government’s proposals on land reform, which are being enunciated in the Scottish Parliament this very day. I am delighted to reassure the Minister that no Mugabe-style land grab is intended; we are just seeking a fairer distribution in agriculture so that family farms and communities across Scotland get a more equitable distribution of the land holdings. That also helps to answer his point. It cannot be seriously argued that we should look at payments per individual farm or estate—whether of 200, 300 acres, or, in the case of Viscount Astor, 20,000 acres. That cannot be used as a serious argument in relation to the imbalance of agricultural support.
	Substantial insult has been added to injury in these matters. The European Union, after representations from the Scottish Government and others, tried, in a minimalist fashion, to address these imbalances, which had occurred due to the total incompetence of the UK Government’s negotiations and their stance on the CAP. It decided to allocate €220 million as convergence money to take account of the fact that there was such an imbalance in support per hectare in the United Kingdom—in Scotland, in particular—compared with the rest of the Europe. All of that €220 million is to be distributed geographically across the UK instead of accepting that the UK is getting it because of the dramatic imbalance in terms of the huge land holdings in Scotland and the very, very low payments per hectare. I have heard that described in National Farmers Union meetings in Scotland as akin to embezzlement by the United Kingdom Government. That is how it is regarded. I hope that the Minister will at least revisit the issue of the convergence money, or if not, another issue that should be revisited—getting a fairer distribution of agricultural support.
	An industry in a competitive position in a common market with other industries must have a fair distribution of support in order to compete effectively.

Kevin Foster: I have been listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s points about funding for Scotland. How does he think this support would be getting on without the benefit of the UK’s rebate?

Alex Salmond: One of the reasons we do so incredibly badly in many European programmes as regards funding is that the Treasury’s interest, when looking at additionality, as it calls it, is always to minimise EU expenditure. Although it is perfectly acceptable for the Government to defend the rebate, it is less acceptable to look at every European programme and try to minimise expenditure on it, because in doing so, we lose some of the alternative opportunities that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South talked about. If the Treasury looks at every European programme and says, “How do we minimise spending?”, what follows as a natural consequence is that our share of that spending is also diminished. In the case of the common agricultural policy, it is possible to make a direct connection with the negotiating stance of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was trying to abolish farm payments altogether and got the miserable, unfair and inequitable distribution of support that has been the end result of the CAP negotiations.
	The Minister—I am not sure if it was a dead bat, a glorious drive through covers, or a catch at slips—rather evaded the direct question of what is the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance on the budget. The Minister said, after being passed a note, that the Prime Minister’s stance was to cut the whole budget and to protect the UK rebate. Let me point out that that has been the Government’s stance and policy since they took office in 2010; it is not a particular stance for these renegotiations. What the Minister is being asked—we really would like an answer—is whether the Prime Minister has a specific target in mind in renegotiations for changes in the EU budget or the UK contribution to it, and if so, what it is. Failure to answer that question throughout the debate adds to the no doubt unworthy, but considerable, suspicion shared across this Chamber that the Prime Minister is adopting this nebulous approach to what are his negotiating aims so that whatever he comes back with can be announced as a fundamental achievement. That does not stand scrutiny in this Committee, but even more importantly, it is a particularly poor campaigning argument in favour of the European cause.
	I hope that the Minister—the last man in—will rise to the occasion by confirming that he is in favour of more equitable distribution of land ownership in Scotland and by giving us an insight into the Prime Minister’s true negotiating hand in the coming arguments and discussions in the European Union.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The speech by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is tremendously important and gets to the heart of one of the issues we have with the common agricultural policy, although, not surprisingly, I look at it in a different way from the question of socialism and land holdings that the SNP is going for.
	The issue, as has been discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee, is that over the years our farmers have increasingly become so efficient and large that
	there has been a good deal of consolidation. That applies very much in my constituency among dairy farmers. The number of dairy farms has reduced significantly and they are bigger farms proportionately, but European subsidies tend to go to smaller farms disproportionately. Therefore, we find that British farmers are disadvantaged. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if, under a system of farming subsidies and a competitive framework, that means that people are getting handouts from the European Union, British farmers—farmers in the United Kingdom—do not get the equivalent subsidies to farmers on the continent, they are disadvantaged because their cost base is automatically higher and their profitability is reduced. Therefore, when we are arguing for careful consideration, overview and oversight of expenditure in the European Union, and reductions in the common agricultural policy, we have to ensure that the cuts are made in a way that is fair to the UK farmer. Even if our end objective is the entire elimination of agricultural subsidies, it must be done in a way—

Jim Shannon: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the farms in Northern Ireland are smaller. They are greater today than they were, say, 20 years ago, but they are still not big in comparison with those on the UK mainland. Does he agree that there needs to be consideration for the farms in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency of Strangford? He seems to be referring to farms that are very large. In Northern Ireland, we have farms with an average of 150 acres.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very sympathetic to farmers and I ought to declare an interest as I have a little land in Somerset, although sadly not a great deal and I do not farm directly. If I did, I would certainly count as a very, very small farmer. In the past a slice has been taken from the biggest receivers of European subsidies, so the farms that have been the most consolidated and efficient lose subsidies at a faster rate than other farms. I think that protection is already in place—

Alex Salmond: That is why the protection built into the agricultural settlement of €196 per hectare is so important, and why it is so disadvantageous that it is almost half that figure in Scotland. That is why the minimum per hectare is so important.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Being more traditional, I prefer a minimum per acre, but otherwise I am broadly in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is not right to look at the issue purely in terms of the landowner, because that discourages consolidation. As Conservatives, we are in favour of efficiency in all industries, but the subsidy system across Europe not only disadvantages our farmers, but discourages consolidation and efficiency. That cannot be the right approach.

Peter Grant: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that consolidation and enlargement always equal efficiency? Does he not recognise that, especially in agriculture, there are significant community and social benefits to allowing small, family owned farms to continue in existence?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There are great advantages to having small, family owned farms, but we need an efficient agricultural system that provides the food and produce
	the country needs. I do not think one should be unduly sentimental for agriculture against other industries. As a lover of the countryside and of our rural traditions, I am tempted to fall in line with the hon. Gentleman, who represents Glenrothes. The constituency was called Central Fife when I stood there—unsuccessfully, just for the record. However, although I am sympathetic to his point, I think it is important to have efficient agriculture first when spending other hard-pressed taxpayers’ money. It ought not to be entirely about sentimentality.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Before I turn to the main part of the my speech, I would like to comment on what he has just said. Some 34 years ago, my then 11-year-old son had a discussion at his primary school about what was then called the Common Market. He was asked about the common agricultural policy, which he knew a lot about because he listened to me at home. His teacher asked him, “What is the CAP?” He said, “It’s the common agricultural policy.” His teacher asked, “What is that about, then, Daniel?” He said, “It’s a way of subsidising inefficient small farms,” and 34 years on, the hon. Gentleman has raised exactly the same point. Some things do not change very much. I think my son is the same age as the hon. Gentleman.
	It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who sits on the Front Bench, and support two of her new clauses and her amendment. On new clause 3, I am pleased that she has acceded to the sensible point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member. I will, however, support my hon. Friend in the Lobby later on her other new clauses.
	I have spoken probably 100 times in European debates in this Chamber over the past 18 years. I have said some of what I am going to say today a number of times before, but in order to make an effect in politics I think we must sometimes repeat messages over and over again, hoping that, in time, one’s colleagues, particularly those on the Front Bench, will listen, agree, take note and act accordingly.
	I was also much taken by the hon. Gentleman’s comment that when he rebelled he was trying to help his Front-Bench colleagues. That is a splendid idea. If ever I am moved to rebel in future, I shall tell my Whip that I am trying to help our Front-Bench colleagues and I hope she will accept it in that spirit.
	The most interesting new clause is new clause 2, which is about expenditure. I have said many times that I believe that the common agricultural policy ought to be repatriated to member states for them to decide how to subsidise their own agriculture, and that the CAP’s structures should be dismantled. We would certainly benefit from that financially in more than one way, including by not paying in so much. We could subsidise at exactly the same level and possibly in exactly the same way, but still be better off because we would not be paying into something where we are net losers.
	Beyond that, food prices have, over decades, been higher than they would have been if we were not in the CAP and could buy food on world markets. Indeed, one
	of the markets we could buy in would be within the European Union itself. There are some low-cost food producers, particularly in eastern Europe, from whom we might buy food. A year or two ago, the Chairman of the ESC and I visited Lithuania, where I discovered, much to my surprise, that Lithuania used to be self-sufficient in food production. Now it is being paid to not grow food, and large swathes of land in Lithuania are lying fallow. It is nonsense that a poorer country that was self-sufficient is now being paid to not grow food. If it were allowed to grow as much food as it liked and we could buy it at relatively lower prices, that would be a very sensible arrangement. The CAP should be repatriated to member states, something which I think would, in the end, be to everyone’s advantage.

Angus MacNeil: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands or places further north of Scotland, but he would see greater use of land there than in the highlands and islands of Scotland, because the agricultural support is so much better. On repatriation, would there not be a danger to some countries that the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American model of economics would suck out the little money that is there and give it to London, which does not put it around its own state? At least with Europe we have some sort of guarantee that we will get the money, even though we are among the least favoured areas of the land.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman’s point tempts me to talk at greater length about a broader, more socialist approach to running the world, with which I strongly agree. If I did so, however, I think I would set too many hares running and Mr Williams would call me to order very quickly.
	The CAP is nonsense. We ought to abolish it and repatriate agricultural policy to member states. We can decide in our own country which parts of agriculture should be subsidised and to what extent, and we can decide where and when we buy food. We might choose to subsidise to keep agriculture sustained in this country for strategic reasons. During the second world war we needed to produce food for ourselves, and all countries have to bear those sorts of factors in mind when deciding what they produce.
	Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) obviously does not like the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy very much. I am surprised that the SNP is in favour of the European Union at all.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I think that the CAP is a failure of UK Government negotiation, as I have tried to explain. On the CFP, however, he is on much stronger ground: I would support a treaty amendment to change it substantially and remove it from central control.

Kelvin Hopkins: We are in strong agreement on that point. I have said many times in this Chamber that we ought to give notice of withdrawal from the CFP if it is not abolished in total. Countries could then manage their own fisheries with a 200-mile or 50/50 limit. In that way, fish stocks could be recovered, because they
	would be managed at a national level and we would license fishing for our own fishermen. In addition, if any other fishing boats came from outside, they would have to be licensed and managed properly.

Alex Salmond: To pursue my point, is it not strange that the Government never mention treaty amendment to the common fisheries policy as an objective, even though it would certainly be within the competence of this financial Bill? Everything else is mentioned as an objective in the renegotiation, but to my knowledge the Prime Minister has never identified the common fisheries policy as something that he is even trying to get change on, far less a treaty amendment.

Kelvin Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. That is one of my red lines, and I shall put that case to the Prime Minister when I have an opportunity. I have said that many times before in the Chamber.

Jim Shannon: As I said earlier, I represent the constituency of Strangford, and the fishing industry is particularly important to me. We have had a cod recovery programme in the Irish sea for the past 10 to 12 years, and there are greater numbers of cod than there have ever been during that time and the fish are bigger. However, Europe restricts our fishermen’s ability to fish those cod. That is an example of why we need a new common fisheries policy that local people can control and have an input in.

Hywel Williams: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) will not go too far down that line of discussion.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall move on to my other points in a second, Mr Williams, but I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that if member states control their own fisheries, they will be able to stop irresponsible fishing and the plundering of fish stocks by other nations.

Greg Knight: Going back to what the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago about agriculture, is he aware that many farmers do not want to leave the EU because they feel they would be treated less generously? However, if Britain came out of the Union, would we as a net contributor not have more money to spend on farming if we wished to do so?

Kelvin Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I have said that if we were outside the EU, we would be better off financially and could choose what we subsidised, how and to what extent. We could choose what sort of farming we wanted to sustain. I have made the point before that small hill farmers in Wales, who are part of our rural culture, ought to be preserved. They might not be very efficient, but we could perhaps choose to subsidise them. For other forms of farming we might choose to maintain the subsidies at the current level, but we would make that choice democratically through our Government and this Parliament.

Angus MacNeil: The glib answer that has often been given to me in the House in years past as to why we should maintain the common fisheries policy is that
	fish do not have passports. Of course that neglects the reality that there are three types of stocks: migratory stocks, non-migratory stocks and straddling stocks. We can look at what happens in countries that control their own fisheries, such as Iceland. Jóhann Sigurjónsson, the chief fishing scientist of Iceland, tells me that its fishing has so improved, and trawlers are catching the cod stocks so much more quickly, that fishermen are actually getting frustrated. They are being so successful and doing their work in so little time that they want to go and catch more. That is a sign of their success, having managed their own stocks for a number of decades.

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is well ahead of me in his expertise in the matter, but the basic point is that we should control our own fish stocks and manage them properly.
	I have one or two other points to make about expenditure in the EU budget. From time to time we have discussed international aid. My view, and I think the view of the Department for International Development, is that we would spend international aid better than it is spent through the European Union. We would target and manage it better and try to ensure that it was spent in a less corrupt way in certain countries. Countries would do better to manage their own aid donations abroad than have them dealt with through the European Union. Aid is therefore another component of the EU budget that could be taken away.
	Then we come to structural funds. Again, I believe that member states, particularly our own country, are best able to judge what regional assistance they need to provide. We could target that assistance better than when it is decided by the European Union. As part of our regional policy, we might want to have state aid to assist the growth of manufacturing in some of the less successful regions of our country. Manufacturing is too small as a proportion of our economy, and if we want to expand and improve our manufacturing sector to help investment, we might want to use state aid, which is forbidden under the EU arrangements.

Angus MacNeil: Is not the great danger that the high priest of the austerity cult, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would drive austerity further and we would not see the spending that we currently see in areas of Wales and in the highlands and islands of Scotland?

Alex Salmond: He’d keep it all for himself.

Angus MacNeil: He would keep it all in London. If that were to happen, we would need full fiscal autonomy, or indeed independence, to ensure that areas of Scotland were well protected.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but it is a counsel of despair to say that because we cannot trust our own Government, we have to go to the European Union. I was on a march through London opposing austerity last Saturday, and there were tens of thousands of people there who felt strongly about it. Even though we may have Governments we do not like from time to time, we have the chance of pressurising them in the short term and getting rid of them and replacing them with more progressive Governments in the long term.
	Pressurising Governments is what I do in politics, as I think Members of all parties do. I want to see the Government elected in this country governing this country, not giving away our powers so that we are governed by a bureaucracy in Brussels or wherever.
	I have mentioned spending on the CAP, aid, structural funds, regional policy and so on. If we had responsibility for those things, some of the fiscal transfers that effectively take place between the richer and poorer countries in the European Union might no longer happen. If we want fiscal transfers, the way to do it would be for us to make substantial contributions to a fund that could be allocated to the Governments of less well-off countries. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland or wherever could benefit from donations, but they would go to those countries’ Governments, who would decide how that money ought to be spent in their countries. It would not be about the European Union subsidising certain sectors in a way that may or may not be beneficial to those countries. As I said, in Lithuania, and no doubt in other countries, they are being paid not to grow agricultural products and their own food. That is nonsensical, and I wish to see an end to it. If we want fiscal transfers, let them be up front. Let us contribute to a fund that poorer countries in the EU, or in a new association of member states, could draw on. That would be a more sensible way forward.
	Of course, that would loosen the bonds of the European Union. We would not have decisions about all sorts of sectors being made by the Commission in Brussels. They would be made by democratic Governments, and we would have a looser association of states within Europe, which would be a much more sensible way of operating. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, and I support her probing new clauses and her amendment 1, which we hope to be voting on soon.

Hywel Williams: I call Peter Grant.

Peter Grant: Tapadh leibh—thank you, Mr Williams. I apologise for not being able to say that in Welsh despite your attempts at tuition last night. I will keep practising.
	It struck me after hearing the first two speakers in the debate that we had spent an hour and 45 minutes discussing the Bill and the only point of contention appeared to be whether the Government should write letters, and, if so, how many. If we are serious about sorting out great European institutions that are inefficient and have a lot of waste, I suspect that many of the audience of millions watching live on television will ask us to hold a mirror up to our own face. A debate such as this surely cannot be what this place was designed for.
	I have found it quite interesting that, although in theory the Bill is about agreeing how the European Union brings in its money, a lot of today’s discussion has been about what happens to the money afterwards. One big problem with the way the European Union manages—or does not manage—its finances is there is still a complete divorce between decisions on how much money it needs and who pays it, and on how much
	money is going to be spent and how. Until the European Union brings those two big decisions closer together, we are always likely to have anomalies.
	We talk all the time about what the EU costs, but at some point in the future perhaps we will talk about the benefits we get—or could hope to get—from it. I am an accountant by profession, and, if it is true that an accountant is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, the Government Benches are today full of accountants. We have had a lot of questions about whose fault is it that costs have gone up, and who gets the credit for costs coming down. We have not heard an awful lot about the benefits, and that is worrying when we are approaching a referendum that could see us torn out of the European Union—even if we vote to stay in. Talking about the benefits should mean talking about not just getting more money out than we put in, however, because it does not take a genius or even an accountant to work out that not everybody in the European Union can carry on taking out more than they put in.
	As a trading island state, surely there is a benefit to the removal of trade barriers. I can remember the trade wars, as a wee boy, when the United Kingdom did something to upset the French, so the French discovered that British lamb was no longer fit for French consumers, and in retaliation, and completely by coincidence, the United Kingdom discovered that French apples did not quite come up to our standards—and so it went on. It was great for lawyers; it was probably quite good for the politicians; but it did not help the producers of those foodstuffs, because they spent longer arguing about who was allowed to buy and sell what, and less time producing and making their businesses more efficient.
	We should never allow ourselves to forget that this year we mark 70 years since the United Kingdom was at war with Germany. I do not think that condition has existed at any time before 1945. I have been back through the books and cannot find a period of 75 years without a major war between the countries of western Europe. Surely that has to be celebrated, and it is no coincidence that it started with the establishment of the common market and with European nations looking for ways to settle their disputes without going to war. That has to be a massive benefit of continued co-operation among European nations.
	My position, and that of the Scottish National party, is that we want to be citizens of the European Union in such a way that we can have a state of co-operation with our European neighbours without losing the sovereign rights of the people of Scotland. We want our co-operative relationship with our neighbours across the North Sea to be exactly the same as that with our neighbours across the Irish Sea and, indeed, across the River Tweed.
	There has been a lot of talk about the common fisheries policy and common agricultural policy. It should hardly be a surprise that Scotland does not get a good deal out of the common agricultural policy, because the longest-serving, most respected Agriculture Minister in the whole of Europe, possibly in the whole world, is not allowed to take part in those discussions, as he is not a Minister of a member state. We are represented by somebody who has not even been elected—who has never faced the test of public accountability at the ballot box. We in Scotland have an Agriculture Minister who is quite possibly unique in the world, in that he
	holds the full confidence of his Government and the absolute trust of farmers at the same time, but he is not let through the door to be part of those discussions.
	It should not be any surprise that the common fisheries policy has never worked for Scotland, when Luxembourg gets a vote on it and we do not. Luxembourg’s population is the same size as Edinburgh’s. I do not consider myself to have a coastal constituency, but my constituency has a bigger coastline than Luxembourg—indeed, my constituency has a coastline. Is it any surprise that so many of the major pillars of EU policy do not work in the communities where they have an effect, when so many decisions are taken by people who represent nations that do not have a fishing industry, and where agriculture is peripheral to their economy, rather than central not only to their economic but social well being, as in nations such as Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland and Wales?
	A Conservative Member asked about the SNP’s position on Europe. I would love to see what deal Scotland could get out of Europe if we had a voice in Europe. At the moment every representation that we make to Europe has to go through the Westminster filter, and I do not blame that filter for changing them to act in the interests of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom. We are outnumbered by 10, 11, or 12-1 in population terms, so the representations that the UK Government make to Europe will always be loaded towards what they see to be in the best interest of the major nation.

Alex Salmond: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the likely outcome of Scottish negotiations in Europe, but it is highly unlikely that any Scottish negotiator would come back with less agriculture support than the minimum awarded to every other European nation.

Peter Grant: I do not know whether that is a bid to be the first independent Scottish ambassador to the European Union, but if I am in a position to put anybody’s name forward I shall certainly bear in mind my right hon. Friend. He makes a valid point, which is related to the question he has asked repeatedly and on which he has still not had an answer: what the Prime Minister’s negotiating position and priorities are going to be. The fishing industry is not a massively important part of the United Kingdom’s economy; it is a massively important part of the economies of some nations that make up the United Kingdom. The negotiations are, however, always carried out through the Westminster lens, and it is as seen as a major achievement when all we come back with is, “Not too many things have got worse.” We talk about aspiration. I think aspiration means we want things to get better, not to think we have achieved a lot when we come back from negotiations and have not had to lose too much.
	The European Union does not mange its finances very well at all. We do not need to be accountants to work that out. Most companies would not be allowed to continue if they went 20 years without having their accounts signed off. Sometimes we need to look, however, at how we manage the part of it for which we are responsible. Some questions today, particularly those from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on the Labour Front Bench, about scrutiny of the European budget and the performance
	and financial management of the European Union, were pointing to weaknesses in the way this House holds Europe to account. That points either to a lack of involvement of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, or to the fact that it has not been given sufficient powers. There are many weaknesses in the way European finances affect the responsibilities of this Chamber, and changes could be made to the way this House holds Europe to account, but their delivery does not necessarily mean having to threaten to walk away from Europe altogether.
	As I said in an earlier intervention, I do not see why the amendment needs to be put to a vote. It does not contain anything that the Government should be reluctant to do. I defer to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has left the Chamber, and his expertise on the procedures of the House and the position of the EU Scrutiny Committee, but it is time to put on a statutory basis a process whereby the Government ask things of Europe on our behalf—and which no Government in their right mind should be reluctant to do. How could any Government not want to ask Europe to be more accountable, or to think a wee bit more carefully about its spending priorities before it sets them? I hope that we see an outbreak of common sense among Government Members.
	The United Kingdom’s position in whatever negotiations the Prime Minister has would be strengthened if we could find a way for this Bill to be amended and approved unopposed. If the proposed changes are put to a vote, I am minded to go with them. It would be sad if it were a matter of public record that this Committee had divided on such an important matter—on the crucial question of whether we wanted the Secretary of State to write a letter to Europe.

David Gauke: We have had a wide-ranging debate over the past two and a half hours. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was not far off the substance of the matter before us: the disagreement is over whether there should be placed in statute a requirement to write a letter.
	I recognise the spirit of the proposed changes before us, and the need for us to improve the value of expenditure in the European Union, to cut down on waste and to increase transparency. We strongly support and have advocated those points.
	I have to say that writing to the Commission, asking it to review the issues, will not particularly achieve the objectives we have heard set out, but the Government have taken action and continue to do so to improve EU spending. That began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, cutting the budget in real terms. It has forced the Commission to prioritise, which we very much welcome, and it has led to the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The UK is playing an active role in that process, and we continue to push the Commission to bear down on waste in its responses to the EU budget discharge process. The Government are contributing to the simplification proposals from the Commission, and the UK will continue to fight for restraint in the annual budget.
	Those steps have led to concrete results: the Commission has become more transparent and has shifted more funding into pro-growth spending. We certainly make no apologies for that—although there appears to be
	some resistance to it in some parts of the House—and the UK’s contributions will be lower for every year in this seven-year deal period than in the final year of the last MFF deal. That is a saving of almost £8 billion over the forecast period compared with 2013-14.

Barbara Keeley: If the Minister is resisting the amendments, and it sounds as though he is, will he tell the Committee whether he is happy with the balance of priorities in the spending on competitiveness for jobs and growth, which was a key point that I spent time discussing? He seems to be resisting any attempt to put forward a review or report that would make it easier for the House to push for changes, so is he happy with the current balance?

David Gauke: In the 2013 negotiations, we achieved a shift towards a greater proportion of expenditure being on pro-growth measures, such as research and development, and away from other areas of expenditure that contribute less to growth. That includes the common agricultural policy. The hon. Lady says that it is a small amount. Actually, it was not; there was significant progress in terms of a reduction in the common agricultural policy, with more spending on those areas where we think there could be greater added value. That is the right direction. I again have to draw the contrast with the surrender of £2 billion a year in respect of our rebate for common agricultural policy reform that we did not see—I am afraid that that is the record of the last Labour Government with the 2005 deal. I therefore believe that we are moving in the right direction.
	If the hon. Lady is asking, “Would we like to go further?”, then, yes, I very much support that view. We want to go further and see a greater emphasis on expenditure that provides better value for money for UK and EU taxpayers. That is very much what we want, but I question the idea that the letter she is calling for will make any difference, particularly when we are seeing progress with the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The working group will meet for the first time in July and there will be a major conference in September 2015. We want to continue that approach during the mid-term review, which, as I said, will occur in 2016.

Barbara Keeley: The Minister was unable to give a date. Mid-term reviews are one thing, but we are moving towards a referendum, as we all know. We are all going to have to build this case for our constituents and for the campaign out there, and we need the information sooner. The slow trundling-on of the EU Commission will not suit our need for that information in this country, in this year and the next. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency and try to explain that this is a really good deal—the split between competitiveness and growth, and the amount that is spent on research and development—when we really should be pushing for that for our economy. We need to explain that and we need the review to be done sooner. He cannot even say when it is going to be done in 2016—it may be too late.

David Gauke: The MFF will be in 2016, as I said. The reality is that trying to transfer expenditure in the way we certainly want to—and from what the hon. Lady is saying, she also wants to, although it does not seem to
	have support in all parts of the House—is a major task. We have made progress. If she is saying that the situation is frustrating and she would like to go faster, I am not disagreeing with her, but I am afraid that that is the way the European Union works. We have clearly made progress and I do not think it does her cause any good to downplay our progress.

Alex Salmond: rose—

David Gauke: I was going to turn directly to the common agricultural policy, for which the right hon. Gentleman is such an enthusiast, subject to his complaint that he would like Scotland to have a greater share of the money that comes to the United Kingdom.
	During the renegotiation, we faced the fact that the UK’s CAP receipts would fall over the next budgetary period in real terms. The conclusion was that the fairest way of allocating that cut was through an equal, proportionate reduction in both pillars across the United Kingdom. To have allocated more funding to Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom would have meant deeper cuts across the rest of the United Kingdom. That was why the Government took the steps we did.

Alex Salmond: Rather than bemoaning the £2 billion the Labour party lost in respect of the budget rebate, will the Minister revisit the €220 million of convergence money that the Government chose not to distribute by hectare, which is the basis on which we got it in the first place? Does he realise how much bitterness that decision caused in the rural communities of Scotland? It no doubt contributed to the Conservative party’s worst election result in Scotland for a century last month.

David Gauke: I will briefly make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no additional money for the United Kingdom. Over the next funding period, the UK’s direct payments will fall by about €500 million compared with 2013. The most appropriate way of allocating that cut, as I said earlier, is to share it equally between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To have given more money to Scotland would have meant a greater reduction across the rest of the UK.
	If the right hon. Gentleman objects to that approach, let me put it in context. Regions are allocated structural funds according to a Commission formula that was agreed as part of the MFF deal, which takes into account, among other factors, regional wealth relative to the EU average. As a result of the new EU formula for allocating structural funds, there would not have been a fair distribution across the UK, with each of the devolved Administrations set to lose out significantly. In 2013, the Government decided to correct that. As a result, Northern Ireland’s allocation was increased by €181 million, Scotland’s by €228 million and Wales’s by €375 million. That meant that all parts of the UK were subject to an equal cut. We believe that that delivered the fairest deal for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, the right hon. Gentleman chose not to draw the Committee’s attention to that example of equal treatment, which benefited Scotland.

Alex Salmond: The Minister would probably get more information from The Scottish Farmer than he is getting from his civil service briefs. There was €220 million of
	convergence money to take account of the fact that per hectare, particularly in Scotland, we were receiving so much less than the minimum that was allocated to other countries. The question is quite a simple one. The vast majority of people think that it would have been fair to distribute that convergence funding per hectare, because that was why we were getting it. Why was that not done, and will he revisit that bad decision?

David Gauke: I say again that the right hon. Gentleman really must look at the overall treatment. When we look at agriculture spending and the structural funds, we see that there has been fair treatment of each part of the United Kingdom to ensure that no one part suffers as a result of changes to the EU budget. I say to him that if we can find savings in the common agricultural policy, we should do so.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate. When it comes down to it, I believe that there is support for the clauses in the Bill, but it appears that the Opposition wish to press their new clauses that call on us to write letters calling for action, ignoring that that action is already being taken and that there is already going to be a review of the MFF by the Council of Ministers. The Commission is already following the Prime Minister’s historic deal by focusing on prioritising expenditure. I am afraid that the letters that the Opposition propose will achieve nothing of substance and do not belong in a Bill that is focused on revenue, rather than expenditure. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) not to press her amendment and new clauses, and urge hon. Members to support the clauses of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Repeal, extent, commencement and short title

Amendment proposed: 1,page1,line18,leave out subsection (3).—(Barbara Keeley.)
	This amendment removes the automatic coming into force of the Act two months after it is passed, which would be incompatible with any of the new Clauses.
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 254, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Third Reading

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill gives UK approval to the financing aspects of the 2013 EU budget deal. As hon. Members will recall, in 2013, the Prime Minister secured a deal that delivered the first ever real-terms cut to the EU budget and preserved our rebate. If we are tightening our belts at home, we should not be spending more through
	the EU—and thanks to the Prime Minister’s historic deal, we are not. It is a good deal for the taxpayer now and over the coming years.
	In addition to forcing restraint on EU expenditure on the revenue side, it was a specific UK objective that there would be no new types of member state contribution; no new EU-wide taxes to finance EU spending; and no change to the UK rebate. That is precisely what we achieved. The political agreement at the February 2013 European Council was accurately reflected in the new own resources decision. This sets out the system of financing the EU budget until 2020, and was agreed unanimously by member states at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in May 2014.
	Hon. Members will have noted that the ORD reintroduces reductions in the gross national income-based contributions of the Netherlands and Sweden, and introduces small reductions in those contributions for Denmark and Austria. The UK will contribute to these small corrections, but this will largely be offset by changes to other corrections. The UK has always supported the principle of budgetary corrections set out at the 1984 Fontainebleau European Council, which gave us our own rebate. In the absence of any meaningful reform on the expenditure side of the EU budget, we believe that those member states that, like the UK, make disproportionately large net contributions in relation to their prosperity, should receive corrections.
	The Bill will give UK approval to the unanimous agreement on the new ORD—an agreement that maintains the existing system of financing the EU budget. That means no new types of member state contributions; no new EU-wide taxes to finance EU spending; and, crucially, no change to our rebate.
	This agreement is in our national interest. It also serves as an important reminder of what can be done when we are tough, constructive, positive and determined in negotiations with European partners. The agreement that will be implemented by this Bill is a good deal for Britain and a good deal for Europe, and I commend it to the House.

Barbara Keeley: I am glad that new clauses 1 and 2 were discussed earlier. Given the result of the vote, I urge the Minister to consider the importance of keeping EU budget spending under review. As I said earlier, the system of commitments and payments is worrying. We want a system of budgetary control, not a system that drives up the pressure for increases through unpaid bills and commitments made in years past.
	I also urge the Minister to continue to focus on the need for reform of EU budget priorities, which we spent some time discussing, and, in particular, on the need to increase funding for competitiveness, jobs and growth. It is important for Ministers to be able to reshape EU budget priorities, but, following our discussions, I am not sure that they have that ability.
	The Minister resisted our amendments, and resisted our requests for him to make a sensible undertaking that would have removed the necessity for a vote. His position on our amendment and new clauses suggests that he is content with the reports and reviews that are trundling along in the EU, and it does not send the strong message that could be sent about the need for
	enhanced scrutiny and reformed priorities. That is a pity, and I hope that the Minister will continue to reflect on it.

Alex Salmond: Thinking back to all the Committee sittings, I recall that the Minister did not feel able to give an effective answer to questions about the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance in relation to the forthcoming European question and, particularly, European finances. He was asked a number of times—by me and by other Members, including Labour Front Benchers—what would be distinctive about that stance, and what the Prime Minister’s precise objectives were. The Minister responded by telling us that the Government’s objective was to minimise the EU budget, to ensure that it was efficient, and to protect the rebate, but that has been Government policy for a number of years. What really interested Members was whether the Prime Minister had a specific intent and negotiating stance, and what his objectives were. We were interested in those questions in the context of European finances, so that we could judge his success or failure after the negotiations.
	If the Minister does not feel able to provide an answer to what strikes me as a very reasonable and fair question, he will add to and fuel suspicions among both pro- and anti-Europeans in the House that it is not just a question of the Prime Minister’s having a stance, but of the Prime Minister and the Government deliberately concealing the nature of that stance from the House and the country, so that it will not be possible for them to be judged effectively when the negotiations are over. That seems to me to be a fundamentally
	unsatisfactory way to proceed in regard to any financial issue, let alone an issue as important as European finance.
	The Minister shakes his head. I hope that, if he disagrees, he will intervene and reveal what the Prime Minister’s stance actually is, because we are all mystified by what the targets are in the negotiations that are at this moment taking place in various European capitals. The Prime Minister, on our behalf and at our expense, is moving from capital to capital, and the only people who are not to be informed of his actual negotiating posture are the Members of this House and the people of this country. That is a remarkable position.
	I am familiar with the Minister’s steady hand at the Dispatch Box, and with his wonderful cover drive. I know that he would not want, at the very last minute of the Bill’s progress in the House of Commons, to be caught at slip in not answering a simple question: what are the Prime Minister’s negotiating targets, and how will we be able to judge whether he has achieved them?
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
	That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of the motion in the name of Secretary Patrick McLoughlin relating to High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3) not later than 90 minutes after the start of proceedings on this motion; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Goodwill.)

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3)

Robert Goodwill: I beg to move,
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–
	(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–
	(a) amendments relating to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed railway in the vicinity of the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal in the parishes of Fradley and Streethay, King's Bromley and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
	(b) amendments conferring additional power to carry out works in the Borough of Slough and in the parish of Iver in the County of Buckinghamshire for the purpose of providing a new Heathrow Express depot in the Borough of Slough (to the north east of Langley railway station), in consequence of the displacement of the existing depot because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;
	(c) amendments conferring additional power to provide sidings for Crossrail services at Old Oak Common in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham that could be extended in the future to create a connection between the West Coast Main Line Railway and the Great Western Main Line;
	(d) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in
	i. the London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing;
	ii. the parishes of Barton Hartshorn, Calvert Green, Chetwode, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, The Lee and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire;
	iii. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
	iv. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth, Radstone, Thorpe Mandeville and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire;
	v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Curdworth, Kenilworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Southam, Stoneleigh, Stoneton, Wishaw and Moxhull and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;
	vi. the parishes of Armitage with Handsacre, Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, King's Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
	vii. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Chelmsley Wood and Hampton-in­Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull; and
	viii. the City of Birmingham;
	(e) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:
	i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea;
	ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;
	iii. the parishes of Chetwode, Denham, Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon, Stoke Mandeville, Turweston, Twyford and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;
	iv. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
	v. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Greatworth, Marston St Lawrence, Radstone and Thorpe Mandeville in the County of Northamptonshire;
	vi. the parishes of Coleshill, Curdworth, Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Radbourne and Stoneleigh in the County of Warwickshire;
	vii. the parishes of Colwich, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, Hints with Canwell, King's Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Weeford in the County of Staffordshire;
	viii. the parishes of Berkswell and Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;
	ix. the City of Birmingham;
	(f) amendments to the definition of "deposited statement" in clause 63(1) of the Bill to refer to supplementary environmental information provided in relation to matters which do not require an extension of the powers of the Bill to construct works or acquire land;
	(g) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in sub­ paragraphs (a) to (f);
	(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–
	a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and
	(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	The motion relates to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill that is currently before a Select Committee of this House. The role of that Committee is to hear petitions against the Bill from those who are, to use the legal term, “directly and specially affected” by it. The Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), has already heard more petitions in 11 months than the Crossrail Bill Select Committee dealt with in its entire 21 months of sitting.

Michael Fabricant: But does this not demonstrate the rather crass way in which HS2 initially dealt with our constituents? I should like to praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms). He has a unique ability to put constituents’ minds at ease when they feel tense as they appear before a Select Committee.

Robert Goodwill: I would extend that praise to the other members of the Committee, who have dealt very well with people who can be nervous in that situation. I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the work done by my officials at HS2, who have gone the extra mile to address some of the petition issues before they even needed to reach the Committee.
	As intended, the process has led to many sensible changes to the scheme in order to address the needs and concerns of petitioners. Some of the changes have been agreed by HS2 Ltd dealing directly with petitioners, and some were recommended in the Select Committee’s recent interim report, to which the Government responded on 4 June. Many changes can be accommodated using existing powers, but some require the powers in the Bill to be extended—for example, when a change requires the use of land that is not included in the Bill. In such circumstances, an additional provision is required. This is effectively a mini-hybrid Bill, with its own environmental statement and petitioning period for those “directly and specially affected” by the changes.
	The motion relates to an additional provision that, subject to it being passed, the Government intend to deposit on 13 July. The additional provision contains 125 changes, along the line of route beyond Camden, that have resulted from the petitioning process and from HS2 Ltd’s continued development of the design of the railway. The changes are mostly of a minor nature. They include the realignment of access routes and the diversion of footpaths following discussions with affected landowners, or the relocation of areas of ecological mitigation to reduce the impacts on farming operations. I am tempted to say that this is a tidying-up process, but I recall that that was how some described the Lisbon treaty.
	There are, however, proposals for three significant changes. As already announced, we propose to realign the route in the Lichfield area so that it runs in a cutting rather than on an embankment, as well as moving the route away from the Trent and Mersey canal. This will enable the line to go under the A38, the South Staffordshire railway and the west coast main line, which will significantly reduce the visual impact of the railway in the area. I hope the House will welcome this example of the promoter seeking to take on board petitioners’ concerns and integrate them into the HS2 project where we are able to do so. I am particularly pleased that, in this case, the solution will be less expensive to deliver.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister tell the House what effect those route changes will have on the proposed journey times?

Robert Goodwill: They will have no effect at all on the journey times. This is about delivering the project by and large as planned. HS2 is more about capacity than it is about journey times. This is about addressing the real capacity issues that we have on our rail network, particularly between Birmingham and London.
	The most significant other change concerns the Heathrow Express depot. It is currently located at Old Oak Common, but it needs to be relocated in order to construct the new Old Oak Common station. It was originally intended to be moved to another site nearby, but more detailed operational work undertaken by Network Rail since the Bill’s deposit has revealed that that site would not work operationally. We therefore propose to relocate the depot to a site in Langley, near Slough.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister shed more light on his statement that this “would not work operationally”? What I have heard on the grapevine, which has been my only source of information, is that there is more potential to make money out of the Old Oak site than out of the Langley site, and so Network Rail wants a depot out and more commercial development in.

Robert Goodwill: We looked closely at the North Pole depot site, but the Langley site is operationally more effective, and it also means that we would not block any proposal that might come forward for the Great Western line to connect with Crossrail at terminal 5.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister explain what he means by “operationally more effective”, because to any normal person it would seem odd that
	it is “operationally more effective” to have a depot that is not even on the route between Heathrow and Paddington?

Robert Goodwill: In these matters we are advised by Network Rail, which informs us that the practicality of operating these depots is such that the Langley site is the best one on which to locate this depot.

Dominic Grieve: In considering the Langley site, what work has been done on the knock-on consequences for transport within the Iver area? I ask that because there are specific schemes to relieve the heavy goods vehicle problem that is besetting Iver, and it is widely concluded that the project being proposed here will prevent those schemes from happening. In particular, I refer to the relief road into the back of the Ridgeway trading estate. This matters very much and will have to be sorted out if this proposal is to go ahead.

Robert Goodwill: Those are precisely the sort of issues that petitioners can come forward with as part of the hybrid Bill process that this additional provision triggers. May I make it clear that we are not, at this point, considering agreement on these changes? This is about setting the process in train so that these points can be made and the Committee can look at them.

Rob Flello: Will the Minister clarify that last point? Will an environmental impact study be carried out on the difference between the two possible depot sites? Has that been considered or is it something that will come further down the line, if he will pardon the pun?

Robert Goodwill: There will indeed be an environmental statement to address the impact that will arise from the 18 changes that require additional powers in the Bill—for example, a new location for the replacement village hall for Burton Green. An environmental statement will accompany those additional provisions, and some changes that do not require additional provisions will also have their own environmental statement, which will allow those particularly important environmental considerations to be discussed.
	The additional provision includes powers to build sidings for Crossrail at Old Oak Common which may in future enable a link to be built between Crossrail and the west coast main line. That is not in itself part of HS2, but doing the work after HS2 is built would incur significant expense and disruption.

Rupa Huq: It is good that these points made by homeowners have been addressed. On Old Oak Common, what compensation is available to residents in Wells House Road and Midland Terrace in NW10, because they say that their suburban way of life will be demolished? Their gardens are being compulsorily purchased and then they will also have to deal with noise, disruption and all sorts of other things for 10 years. Whatever compensation scheme—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You can sit down and relax for a second, as I want to try to be helpful. The hon. Lady has just come in and normally I would just let that go, but we must have short interventions.
	If she wants to catch my eye to speak, I am more than happy for that to happen. That might be a good way to address this, but we must have short interventions as this debate will last only an hour and a half. Wherever I can be helpful, I will be.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Lady makes precisely the point that has already been raised by many residents about the existing provision before the hybrid Bill Committee. The additional provisions in AP2 will also allow them to have that say, so that, if necessary, mitigation can be put in place to lessen the impact of construction traffic and to look at alternative routes for traffic and other such things. I have been down the line of route, and I do understand many of the problems. Indeed, I was in Slough on Sunday, and saw the site from the train. I know exactly where it is located.

Rob Flello: On the future-proofing issue, the Minister may possibly be aware that I have a certain interest in Stoke-on-Trent being serviced ideally by HS2 directly. However, is the Handsacre junction also being future proofed to protect areas such as Stoke-on-Trent? Do these provisions address that?

Robert Goodwill: That matter does not specifically relate to measures in AP2. Where possible, we will ensure that, as we construct the railway line, we do not rule out other connections, which is precisely the point that I made about the west coast main line.
	The changes in total will not increase the overall project budget or target price for phase 1. They result in modest additional costs, but they will be accommodated within the contingency, which is provided for that very purpose.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister tell us what the total additional land take is for these provisions?

Robert Goodwill: I do not have those figures to hand, but it is minimal. In most of the additional provisions, which are in the document that has been provided for the convenience of the House, we can see that these are quite small additional areas of land. They are not major changes to the project, but tweaks. In many cases, they are changes made at the request of the landowner or farmer involved because it improves their situation.
	As required by Standing Orders, we will be depositing an estimated expense, setting out the gross costs of these changes should the motion be approved. The motion instructs the Committee to consider these amendments and to hear petitions related to them. It is important to note that the motion does not ask the House to agree that these changes should be made; just that the Committee be allowed to consider them. If the House approves the motion, the additional provision and related documents, including an environmental statement describing the likely significant environmental effects of the changes, will be deposited in Parliament and in local authority offices in those locations affected by the changes.

Michael Fabricant: I am a little bit curious about the process. What is to prevent a ping-pong taking place, such as we have between the House of Commons and
	the other place, whereby petitioners say that they do not agree with the changes, and so subsequent changes are made? How does the process end?

Robert Goodwill: In most cases, there will be support for these changes. Indeed, as I have already said, many of the changes are at the request of the landowners who are, in many cases, the only people who are affected. In future, it may be necessary to come up with more additional provisions, and we certainly have that option.

Caroline Spelman: Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the moment of the publication of a document showing the new changes in the site, blight afflicts the properties that are close to the areas affected by these amendments? As a Member of Parliament, I received this document only this morning. My parish council was already aware of the changes. It is an interested party in these changes, but not the landowner.

Robert Goodwill: That document has been provided for the convenience of the House to help with today’s process. The definitive document will be published on 13 July, and that will be the document on which any submissions on the petitioning process can be made. In addition, a supplementary environmental statement will also be deposited. That describes any new or different likely significant environmental effects that may arise, informed by new survey data that have become available since the deposit of the Bill, as HS2 Ltd has now been granted access to more land. As I have said, those deposits are all planned for 13 July. These documents will supersede the explanatory note made available in advance to MPs and published online last week.
	I would like to make Members aware of two minor errors in the document. A change described on page 68 in Berkswell in the constituency of Meriden, while being correctly described and having the correct map, had the wrong plan. One other change relating to a footpath had the correct information provided, but did not clearly highlight the full extent of the footpath that will be amended on page 70. The documents to be deposited on 13 July will contain the full information.
	As required by Standing Orders, notices in national and local newspapers will be published immediately after deposit, alerting the public to these changes and the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation, as appropriate. In addition, HS2 Ltd will be writing to those near the proposed changes to highlight the consultation. Once the notices have appeared, a public consultation on the environmental statement lasting 42 days, in accordance with Standing Orders, will commence. This is planned to run from Friday 17 July to Friday 28 August. As with the main environmental statement consultation at the time of Bill deposit, the responses to the consultation will be analysed by Parliament’s independent assessor and the assessor’s report will be tabled in the House ahead of Third Reading.

Cheryl Gillan: Is it not a great shame that once again there is going to be a truncated consultation period for this increase in land take? Also, has the Minister given consideration to the fact that the consultation is taking place over the summer? Many of the people who want to feed back on this may be away.

Robert Goodwill: I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that people go on holidays at all times of the year. Indeed, if we moved into the September period, many would argue that that is the party conference season and therefore those involved in politics might not be available. I am aware that there is a major leadership campaign going on in at least one of our political parties, which could also be seen as a reason why one time or another might not be appropriate. I believe that the four-week period is absolutely appropriate. We have had no problems in the past with people being able to provide their petitions.
	There will also be a petitioning period of four weeks for those directly or specially affected by the changes in this second additional provision, so that they can submit petitions. That petitioning period will begin on Friday 17 July and end on Friday 14 August for all petitioners.
	I hope that the House will agree that these amendments demonstrate that while the Government recognise the vital role that HS2 has to play in transforming our transport network and our economy, we also recognise the need to listen to those directly affected by the railway and, wherever possible, seek to mitigate those impacts. I commend the motion to the House.

Lilian Greenwood: I am glad that we are holding this HS2 debate on national women in engineering day. I am sure the whole House would agree that the Government’s investment in rail must be used to encourage more women to take up careers in engineering and in the rail industry.
	I welcome the Minister back to his place. I had, of course, hoped to be speaking from his side of the House after the election. I was relishing the possibility of taking ministerial responsibility for the content of each and every one of the Bill’s 50,000 pages, but I reassure the House that the Opposition will continue to subject the Government’s delivery of this important project to close scrutiny.
	I want to express our gratitude for the work undertaken by the Bill’s Select Committee, including the Clerks of the Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), the hon. Members for Poole (Mr Syms), for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), and Mike Thornton, the former Member for Eastleigh. I am sure the whole House will want to place on record its appreciation of the time and effort spent by residents and other affected parties who appeared before the Committee, and to thank the outside bodies and Members of this House who provided support to petitioning.

Jim Cunningham: I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the Select Committee, which visited some of the problem areas that we have in Coventry and also visited those people the wrong side of the dividing line who would not qualify for compensation. I hope that the Committee, the Minister and the Secretary of State will remember that a lot of people’s livelihoods depend on this, and their property has been rendered valueless.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the Committee’s going to visit those places most affected by the route and listening to the concerns expressed.
	I know that the constituencies of several Members on both sides of the House are affected by these changes, and they will want to press the Minister on matters of detail, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
	The Opposition support HS2 because we believe that it is the right project to address chronic capacity shortfalls on the rail network as well as historically inadequate connections between the cities of the north and the midlands. Those arguments were covered in detail in the House, not least on Second Reading, when the House endorsed the principle of building an initial route between London and Birmingham, so I do not propose to repeat them here. However, I will say that, although HS2 has provoked passionate debate, both sides have always accepted that the project’s design could be improved as the route is refined.
	Many of these revisions are undoubtedly positive, and the campaigners who secured changes, such as the reconfiguration of the route at the point it crosses the A38, deserve great credit. That is why the Opposition will not seek to obstruct this motion. Those changes will reduce planning blight for petitioners and provide some measure of certainty to many of those who live along the route. However, I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about these changes, including the relocation of the Heathrow Express depot, and I will make way for them shortly. Before doing so, I would like to put a few questions to the Minister.
	I welcome the Minister’s clarification of when the petitioning period will end, but can he say why the information was not included in the Department’s press release, where arguably it would have been seen by more people? Does he accept that the maps published in his explanatory information document do not provide clear information on a number of issues that might be of interest to residents, such as the elevation of new structures or the net land-take of those changes? Will he give an undertaking that any petitioners or Members of the House who request that information will receive it?
	As the Minister will be aware, the Bill’s Select Committee has said:
	“We have heard that HS2 Limited’s record on engagement has been poor.”
	The Department has said that HS2 Ltd is being more timely in its dealings with petitioners who are due to appear before the Committee in June and July. Can he assure the House that that is not simply a case of officials catching up during Dissolution and that engagement between HS2 Ltd and petitioners will be improved permanently? That is of particular concern to those areas at the southern end of the route. In that regard, can he confirm that he expects to bring forward additional provision to cover Euston station later this year? Can he indicate when exactly those changes will be brought forward?

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady will recall that the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who was a doughty campaigner against HS2, had particular concerns about Euston. Has she given any consideration to the
	Mayor of London’s comment that, even if the changes can be made at Euston, it will be extremely difficult to get people on to London transport—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that I might be able to help. This motion does not relate to Euston, so we do not need to go into that now.

Lilian Greenwood: I will take your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are undoubtedly issues to be tackled at Euston. Three times now the residents of Camden have been presented with different plans for Euston station, with all the uncertainty that brings. Their treatment has clearly been inadequate, and I urge the Minister to shed a little light on when we can expect those additional provisions—I hope that I am still in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that a number of my hon. Friends have not been informed of the fact that the additional provisions would affect their constituencies? I know from discussions with a number of Members that they have had no communication from HS2 Ltd, or indeed from the Department, and consequently have had only one day’s notice that the changes are being debated. I know that the changes are a cause of concern to a number of hon. Friends. That situation is unacceptable, so I hope that the Minister will take it up with officials. The situation must not be repeated when further additional provisions are brought before the House.

Robert Goodwill: We are not debating the provisions; we are debating the fact that the Select Committee can receive petitions and consider the changes. We are not debating the provisions at this point.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is clearly an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members who wish to make comments on behalf of their constituents to do so. It is only right that people are aware of the provisions that are being introduced and debated in this House. They will question what the value of these exchanges is if we do not raise concerns on behalf of our constituents.
	I seek an assurance from the Minister that, when the Committee has issued an instruction regarding a particular section of the route, it will be acted on accordingly. This is a matter of particular concern in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). I would welcome a commitment that today’s additional provision does not represent an end to the question of land-take at the Washwood Heath site, and that a mutually agreed solution will still be sought with the site’s owners.
	Residents face a plethora of compensation schemes, some of which have been withdrawn, while awareness of others appears to be low. As the HS2 residents commissioner has said:
	“It is vital that those who are eligible for the Government’s property compensation and assistance schemes get clear information and know what they are entitled to.”
	Will the Minister take steps to clarify what support is available to residents, including those who live outside the rural support zone? This applies particularly to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).

Rupa Huq: Does my hon. Friend agree that the residents of Wells House Road and Midland Terrace should be entitled to parity with people further up the line in rural areas? It should not be a case of special treatment for people in the Tory shires.

Lilian Greenwood: It is vital that the Minister and HS2 Ltd set out precisely the implications for the roads affected in my hon. Friend’s constituency and the compensation that residents are entitled to. It is vital that those who live in the streets next to Old Oak Common, and other urban areas, are treated fairly. Perhaps the Minister will agree to meet her to ensure that she understands those implications.

Jim Cunningham: As I said, and I hope my hon. Friend agrees, Ministers should look again at the compensation package. I have constituents who will not get a penny out of this. In particular, it lowers the value of their housing. They are just outside the catchment area and have been treated very unfairly; they cannot qualify for compensation from anybody.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are straying outside the area of discussion, which is very tight. There are MPs who want to discuss areas of theirs that are affected. I want to be as generous as I can, but it would be wrong of me to allow us to move into areas that are not for discussion today.

Lilian Greenwood: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
	The Committee rightly acknowledged that decisions made on compensation for phase 1 may have consequences for the compensation arrangements for phase 2. The Government’s delay in finalising the route for phase 2 is causing planning blight. In the Committee’s words, “the incoming Administration”—it was speaking in March—
	“should make an early decision on whether to proceed with Phase Two and, if it decides to proceed, quickly finalise the Phase Two route.”
	That was two months ago. Will the Minister explain why a decision on phase 2 has been delayed, and will he commit to making a final decision by the end of the year?
	We welcome the opportunity that the additional provision mechanism offers to refine the route, but as we look to the Government’s record it is difficult to resist a verdict of “Must do better.” Labour Members continue to support this important project and will continue to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny when it enters Committee.

Cheryl Gillan: It is not often that I follow a Front-Bench Opposition spokesman and can say that I agree with almost every word she spoke.
	Once again, I find myself on my feet to decry the process that is being used to put through high-speed rail. The motion before us is just part of a very complex process that is often unfathomable for people outside this House but also sometimes unfathomable for people inside this House. Some of my hon. Friends have not even been able to access the documentation that was made available at the eleventh hour.
	Sadly, although the motion has high-level pointers to amendments that relate to my constituency, it does not contain the instructions that I would like to see for a fully bored tunnel to save the area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency from the HS2 route and the damage and destruction it will cause. I live in hope that one day a fully bored tunnel under the Chilterns will feature in a similar instruction and that the valiant efforts of thousands of people who support that change will come to fruition.
	Yesterday, the Select Committee came to Chesham and Amersham and visited Little Missenden, Great Missenden and the Lee, which are subject to the motion. I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee, who are doing a very thorough job in examining the pain being caused by the project. It is obvious that they are getting a response from the Department and HS2 Ltd: I was so pleased to hear the cheers from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the beneficial changes in his constituency. We look forward to similar changes in Chesham and Amersham. I also pay tribute to the hundreds of people who came out on a working Monday to impress on the Committee their antipathy to the horrors of the present construction plans, which will wreak havoc on the area, as well as to tell at first hand the poignant and desperate stories of their own personal circumstances.
	Today, we are looking at the process, which, I say to the Minister, has once again been tested and found wanting. It was very short-sighted not only to let us know in such short order that the motion was to be on the Order Paper, but to not make available alongside it the full details. Members of this House expect to be fully informed of what is going on and to not be told that the matter will be addressed on 13 July. I raised a point of order on that very issue and then, miraculously, had delivered to me additional provision explanatory information, which is dated July 2015. Given that it is still June, it was probably not the intention to release it this month. It relates directly to the provisions and it should have been provided to all Members of Parliament so that they could fully examine the proposals.
	The big problem, no matter how small or big the land-take or how big the disruption, is that there is uncertainty for our constituents. For the full details not to have been made available to the Committee to see in situ during yesterday’s visit is not the fair and transparent process I would like the Department and HS2 Ltd to pursue.

Liam Byrne: I am glad that the right hon. Lady is sharing her experience with the House. Has she seen any evidence of High Speed 2 Ltd actually following a word that the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Select Committee has issued?

Cheryl Gillan: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am concentrating on Chesham and Amersham. Fortunately, our petitioning process is at its initial phase. The Committee will hear about the tunnelling options worked up by my community and local authorities, and it will then hear from some 800 petitioners. As far as my constituency is concerned, I hope the best is yet to come, but the right hon. Gentleman’s comments reflect some anxiety that HS2 Ltd and the Department may not be listening
	entirely to what petitioners have to say. However, the Prime Minister assured me in a recent letter that the Department and HS2 are listening to petitioners, so once again I am optimistic and I hope my optimism will be rewarded.
	The high-level changes that are indicated in the instruction lead me to question the way in which the explanatory information on the additional provisions has been presented. It is not clear who HS2 is responding to in instructing the Committee to examine a change in the plans. The instruction does not make clear whether it is petitioners or landowners, or whether it is a petitioner who is a landowner. It could be a new landowner—perhaps HS2 Ltd itself. We need further and better particulars on that in short order.
	In my constituency, farmers will be affected by the taking of more land at Mantle’s wood, which is a piece of ancient woodland. Yesterday, a lot of farmers made the point that the land-take will have an impact on their business and will not leave it in a “strong and viable condition”. We need assurances that HS2 has considered that before instructions are given to the Committee that it should examine the parcels of land in question. One complaint from farmers yesterday around Great Missenden, Little Missenden and the Lee was that in some cases, their land will be taken for compulsory replanting of trees that are not suitable. I would have liked some more information from the Minister about that. As I said, the consultation period that has been announced is terribly short, and I urge him to look again at that.

Nick Hurd: I share my right hon. Friend’s concern about the scope and ambition of the additional provisions, which bear no relation at all to the concerns that my constituents are currently expressing to the Committee. There is a complete disconnect there. I also share her concerns about process. Will she join me in pressing the Minister at least to give us some reassurance at the end of the debate that the process will be improved, not least the timing of the provision of information to colleagues?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend joins me and others in saying that we do not feel well done by by HS2 Ltd and the Department. It gives me great sadness to say that, but I would have thought that after this much time—after all, it is six years since the project was announced—the communications process could have been improved. I am afraid that, as the way in which the instruction was introduced shows, the process is still lacking greatly. If we are not informed, how can we inform our constituents and represent them properly?
	I have taken up enough time, because I would like to leave time for others who are more severely affected by the additional provisions. I opened the papers this morning to see that HS2 Birmingham to London passengers want onboard GPs, shops and gyms. I repeat to d the Minister that I hope we get a fully bored tunnel in the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, because I do not want our precious landscape to be sacrificed for the novel experience of high-speed shopping and muscle toning.

Drew Hendry: As we have heard from the Minister, high-speed rail will have a great economic impact along
	the route between London and the west midlands. An infrastructure project of such a size and scale will also have the knock-on effect of changing communities. There are many people and many views on route choices to consider, and we have heard today about some of the impacts.
	Changes will also happen through the creation of jobs both during and after construction, leaving a long-lasting legacy for future years and for the generations to follow. Indeed, as the Minister said, they will transform the economy. If it is true that the Secretary of State’s report on additional provisions has taken people’s views on board, we shall be able to see where the views of the public and petitioners have been considered and where amendments have been made. I feel sure that hon. Members have also made their views clear on behalf of their constituents, and I have heard some of them this afternoon. We have heard praise for the Minister for putting constituents at ease.
	Views on the alignment of the route have been taken on board in Chesham and Amersham, as they have in constituencies such as Birmingham, Ladywood. The changes to the routing of HS2 appear to have been made to accommodate the local voices of the public and those who represent them. Taking into account the view of the public, and their representations, is always to be commended, particularly when there is likely to be a positive economic impact that creates and supports employment, speeds journey times and increases connectivity to those who need it on the periphery and to those who have suffered a paucity of investment over the decades.

Neil Gray: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the economic benefits in terms of jobs and communities. Does he agree that on the route there could be benefits in terms of greater opportunities for business growth of all types, including expanded tourism and faster links with partners in Europe? That being the case, should Scotland not also benefit from a guaranteed connection with HS2 and be formally included in the forthcoming development of the route?

Drew Hendry: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You do not need to answer that, because unfortunately we are having a very tight debate. As important as it may be to your constituents, the fact is that we are discussing the constituents affected by the route that is being talked about today. Unfortunately, I cannot allow the debate to wander further than where we are at the moment.

Drew Hendry: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Notwithstanding that, I think there are points—especially in local and national economies—that have to be developed through participation. We heard earlier that projects that have been designed can be improved, and the Minister said we need to avoid minor errors; he covered that earlier in terms of the report. We also need to avoid major errors, so I ask him to put more constituents at ease, to go a little further with additional provisions and to listen to the demands of the people of Scotland. He should ensure there is another alignment much further north of the west midlands and make sure that Scotland is connected.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am trying to be helpful. Quite rightly, you are the SNP spokesperson, but even the spokesperson must stick to what we are discussing. It is not a free for all, unfortunately.

Drew Hendry: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept that mild rebuke.

Caroline Spelman: I know a lot of other Members want to get in, so I shall focus on some of the changes that the motion before us will facilitate.
	My main concern is with the additional provisions as they affect the approach to Birmingham International railway station, the new interchange station. Hon. Members will appreciate that its location is very important in terms of the orientation of the route, and one proposed change, on page 108 of the report, would appear to change the road infrastructure on the approach to the station. The road in question is Diddington Lane, and the document refers to the changes that the “Landowner/Petitioner request”. But my difficulty, a common problem that all Members will have, is that there is more than one petitioner on some of these things. As I said in an earlier intervention, at that location there are differences of opinion. The lane has along its length an Island Project school for children with severe learning difficulties, for whom relocation remains unresolved.
	I just cannot tell from the map, frankly, what the new route is, and that makes it very difficult for me to know how the change to the road network is going to affect various people in my constituency. At that point the line severs a number of landowners’ holdings, to the point where some farms might no longer be viable, so I impress upon the Minister how important it is that Members of Parliament have a better quality map than the one provided, because I cannot understand the one I am looking at.
	There are some other provisions that affect my constituency. The Minister said that between pages 68 and 70 a correction is required to the map, but as far as I can tell from the original document, five existing landowners will be affected at that site. If he could let me have the corrected version as soon as possible, I would be very grateful.
	At page 104, the additional provisions describing the additional land for the Kenilworth Greenway, in order to improve the HS2 design, have come at the request of the petitioners. A design change was sought, but at that very location there are considerable difficulties with the visual intrusion of High Speed 2 on a flyover, 40 feet in the air, through the village of Balsall Common. HS2’s own promotional literature describes properties in one lane in particular, Truggist Lane, as blighted, yet I have constituents on that lane who have so far been unable to secure compensation for those properties. I am anxious to know how the change on page 104 might affect residents close by.
	Page 105 describes additional land required for road infrastructure at the Park Lane/A452 interchange affecting one existing landowner, but I have a constituent with an unsettled compensation claim and am anxious to know how the proposed change will affect that claim, as I cannot divine that from the document.
	Although I am glad that there is a period of consultation for my constituents, as well as additional time for consultation and for petitioning the Select Committee, some of the additional proposals blight further properties, perhaps inevitably.
	May I finish by recording my thanks to the Select Committee, whose members have done a Herculean job? They will certainly be familiar with all the locations to which I have referred, and the way in which they have been willing to serve across the old Parliament and into the new shows one of the best attributes that Parliament has to offer our constituents, who need people to stand up and represent them, listen to them and, where possible, to mitigate the impact of the line.

Louise Ellman: I very much welcome today’s debate and the motion, which are about both process and detail: the process of ensuring as far as possible that the HS2 project, required in the national interest to improve national infrastructure, can be developed as part of the national network in a way that maximises employment; and the detail of taking properly into account the concerns of individual people and individual localities. I am very pleased to hear the praise that has been given by hon. Members to the work of the special Select Committee in considering this detail, although it is of some concern that a number of hon. Members say that they have not had sufficient information in time and, in some instances, that there is a lack of clarity about certain maps and charts that have been made available.
	Whenever there is a scheme in the national interest such as HS2, it is inevitable that there will be local problems. It is vital that those issues are considered properly and objectively and that changes are made to the route where possible—today, we are considering the details for the part of the route that is under consideration —and where that cannot be done that adequate compensation is given. It is critical that those issues are considered properly, not just in the special Select Committee but elsewhere.
	I welcome the debate. The work of the special Select Committee is essential in progressing a scheme of national importance in a way that considers proper and legitimate concerns.

Michael Fabricant: When the debate began, a colleague whispered in my ear, “Oh, so you’ve been bought off then.” I can tell the House that I have not. I believe that the route is profoundly wrong for the reasons given in my amendment on Second Reading of the original Bill. For example, it does not even connect directly with the channel tunnel. However, I welcome the orders as the changes being made in this document mean that in Lichfield we will not have the blight or damage to the environment that we would otherwise have had. The original proposal was for a flyover, some 120 feet high, soaring over the plains of the Lichfield Trent Valley. It would have been visible from Lichfield Cathedral; it would probably have been visible from my house in the close of Lichfield Cathedral, although I am not declaring an interest. However, at last we have seen sense.
	I have to give credit not only to the Committee, as I and others did earlier, but to Staffordshire County Council, Lichfield District Council and individuals who petitioned about this issue. I pay particular tribute to a local farmer whose son demonstrated to the Committee the height of the flyover by getting a drone with flags attached to it running to and fro. I was slightly worried that an Exocet missile or something would shoot it out of the sky, but it demonstrated clearly to the Committee and to some people working for HS2, who accompanied the Committee when it came to Lichfield, the damage that the high viaduct would have done.
	There are further changes, too. Those who know me well know that I am a keen narrow boater, and we have some beautiful canals in the Lichfield area. Originally, the HS2 route would have crossed the canals at two particularly beautiful points. Changes have been made there, too. Although, as the Minister said, the cost has been reduced by the making of those changes, I will nevertheless say that he did it because he knew it was the right thing to do, and it means that these canals are now going to be protected.
	In short, I welcome the motion and I welcome, for once, the Minister, who is a good friend of mine, presenting it to the House. If it comes to a vote, I, for one, will be voting for it.

Fiona Mactaggart: Unlike the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I do not welcome the order.
	I have to say thank you to the Minister, who has been very courteous in informing me of what is coming up. That is in quite a degree of contrast to the HS2 project team, which has not kept Slough Borough Council fully aware of what is being proposed, and it has come to a bit of a shock to the council. As a place, Slough is very supportive of big transport infrastructure projects. Heathrow airport’s third runway will come into the borough of Slough, if it happens, yet we are backing it because we realise that these kinds of projects are essential to national economic growth. However, Slough has not been kept fully informed of what has happened, and therefore, I echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about the consultation period on these areas happening in July and August. Although the Minister is right to say that not everybody goes on holiday in July and August, that is when most of my constituents with children do. Because Slough thought that HS2 was to do with other parts of the world and had nothing to do with Slough—none of the original proposals involved anything to do with Slough—it will not be geared up for petitioning, whereas communities on the route of HS2 were geared up by newspaper stories and so on. That is a real issue.
	The other issue is that paragraph 1(b) of the proposal has nothing to do with HS2; it is about the Heathrow Express. It turns out that the Heathrow Express terminal is to be moved. I wonder why. I hate to speculate, but is it possibly because, owing to the land values at Old Oak Common, the land can be flogged off for expensive housing? Those land values are rather bigger than land values in Langley, where that will not be possible. It strikes me that a possible reason for our suddenly finding that we need to move the Heathrow Express
	terminal is that we can make more money out of what happens in Old Oak Common. I do not know that, and if the Minister would like to intervene and assure me that that is not true, that would be nice.

Robert Goodwill: I point out to the right hon. Lady that I talked about operational problems, and one of the problems with the North Pole East depot is that it would require train movements across the Great Western main line. Maintenance works on the Great Western towards Paddington would also mean that the Heathrow Express depot at North Pole East would not be able to operate.

Fiona Mactaggart: That is what the Minister is told, but at least that depot is somewhere on the Heathrow Express route. The proposed depot is not on that route; it is actually to the west of the Heathrow Express route. I point out that the Heathrow Express franchise expires in 2023, so this is not necessarily a long-term need. I am deeply concerned about the western link into Heathrow, which is critical, and I am grateful to the Department for the way it has proceeded on that. It is obvious to me that at some point the western rail link into Heathrow and the Heathrow Express will become a merged franchise. There is land at Reading where the depot could be situated at that point.
	I am worried that this is a short-term solution that has been invented because someone faced a problem with the Heathrow Express. In the motion, we are being asked to solve a short-term problem, which I accept exists, in a way that is not long-term and strategic. The Department could say, “This franchise expires in 2023 and, until then, Heathrow has a monopoly on it, but if Heathrow wants its third runway”—we do not know what the Davies commission will say—“perhaps there should be a price. Perhaps the price should be giving up the franchise and looking at how we can integrate it more intelligently into the rest of the rail network.” That would be a strategic way of dealing with this matter and it would help us to accelerate western rail access into Heathrow.
	In the Minister’s courteous letters to me today, he wrote:
	“The relocation of the Heathrow Express depot is both an opportunity for Slough and important part of the Phase One project”.
	I do not think that it is an opportunity for Slough, because the jobs that come with it are just ones that are being moved down the line from Old Oak Common, where they are at the moment, to Langley. I tell him that that does not mean more jobs for my constituents; it means that people will commute from where they currently live to Langley.

Robert Goodwill: Some of the land that is required for construction will be returned once the depot is complete, so that land will not be lost altogether in respect of job creation in the right hon. Lady’s area.

Fiona Mactaggart: Actually, most of the land that the depot will be on is housing land. I represent the most overcrowded borough in the country, outside London, in terms of housing. In fact, it is more overcrowded than most London boroughs. There is a real need for housing in Slough. I am told by the council that this
	land has been identified as being able to provide 200 to 300 homes for local people. It will not be available for those homes when it has been used.
	The construction of the depot will have an impact on air quality in an area that is already affected by a big incinerator, Heathrow and the biggest motorway junction in Europe, which will affect my constituents. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) pointed out, these plans will frustrate other issues, such as HGV links and western rail access to Heathrow.
	I know that there will be petitions from Slough, but I also know that there will not be as many petitions from Slough as there have been from other communities on the route, because it came as a big surprise to the people of Slough about a week ago that this was happening to them. They can only intervene over the next few weeks—a very short space of time—when some of them will be dealing with their children’s end-of-term plays and planning to go on holiday. I predict that my constituents will be panicked about this and that, although they welcome major transport infrastructure projects because they know that we need them to create prosperity for Britain, they will think that they have been badly treated in this process. I have to say, I believe that they are right.

Dominic Grieve: I will make a brief contribution on the plans, so far as they concern Iver. The right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised the consequences of the new depot for Slough. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, if one looks at the plans, they show that the land take extends beyond the boundary of Slough and as far as Iver station.
	My constituents in Iver obviously live some distance from the main HS2 route and have not previously been concerned with it, except in so far as the Heathrow link plan affected them before it was withdrawn. The scheme raises two distinct problems. First, it is difficult to understand what effect it will have on the western rail link into Heathrow. I would be interested as soon as possible to hear from the Secretary of State and from my hon. Friend the Minister as to how that impact will work in practice.
	Secondly, I have in the past written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to point out to him that Iver is experiencing a catastrophic problem with heavy goods vehicle movements. The number of transport depots in the immediate vicinity of the village, many of which have grown up out of existing planning uses that predate the arrival of planning control, mean that the village is slowly being strangled by the HGV movements. If one stands in Iver village high street, one will see a heavy goods vehicle coming through every 58 seconds on average. It is a narrow village shopping street and the planning development has taken place in complete disregard of those facts.
	There is a possibility of relieving that by the construction of a relief road running into the back of one of those sites, but the road has to cross the path and the line of the proposed new depot. My constituents’ anxiety is that that long-sought road project will be rendered even more difficult to achieve because it is not factored in to the construction of the depot. The construction of the depot might provide the ideal moment for the construction
	of road, but if that does not take place when the depot is constructed, it might be impossible thereafter for it to occur at all.
	As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been aware of my concerns for some time. I was aware that the scheme was around in the background, but there has been no prior notice to me of any kind that it would finally be brought to fruition. I am concerned that the Committee may not be in the best position to evaluate those issues when it comes to consider them under the petitioning process. I want to take the opportunity today to flag up my serious concerns about the knock-on consequences of the project. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that, if we could use the process to provide reassurance that we will have such a back route into the Ridgeway trading estate, I am sure many of my constituents might even see some positives from the proposal, although I am mindful from what the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said about Slough’s housing requirements that there are serious knock-on consequences.
	I hope my hon. Friend the Minister can take those concerns on board. I want to flag up at this stage and repeatedly that the proposal will be unacceptable if it leaves Iver even more isolated and prey to the HGV traffic it suffers from currently.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the motion, and grateful to the Minister for setting out the process, but I am afraid the measure raises some serious questions about the integrity of the process. It raises the question of whether High Speed 2 is listening to the petitioners, to the Minister or to the Bill Select Committee, which has begun considering petitioners’ concerns with interest.
	The integrity of the process is fundamental. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the shadow Minister, said, we do not expect some kind of celestial design from High Speed 2. There are bound to be problems and they will need correcting. That is why the Bill Committee, to which I again pay tribute, is so important, and why hon. Members are so grateful that it is doing such a magnificent job.
	The motion contains a couple of provisions for the Saltley business park that are intimately connected with the proposed rolling stock maintenance depot, which takes out a considerable chunk of the north of my constituency. I do not want to detain the House with the details of the proposal because I have mentioned it on the Floor of the House a number of times. Suffice to say that that area of land is the size of 100 football pitches. It represents one third of the available industrial land in the whole city of Birmingham, and it is located at the junction of two of the constituencies that are among the four most unemployed constituencies in the whole United Kingdom. If we develop the site in its entirety, we could generate 7,000 jobs, which is my estimate, or 3,000 to 3,500 jobs, which is the Minister’s estimate. That is still a very considerable number that could knock off something like a third of the unemployment in the city of Birmingham.
	This is a site of such economic significance that the High Speed Rail Bill Committee has considered it in considerable detail. I was incredibly grateful that although the Committee did not side completely with my argument, it recognised that the issue of unemployment in and around the rolling stock maintenance depot had to be considered. The provisions set out today on the Saltley business park do nothing to address the Committee’s concerns; in fact, they take out even more industrial land in the city of Birmingham. It could be that the site is proposed today for the relocation of business, but we simply do not know.
	The Committee said:
	“We impress on HS2 the need to adjust the scheme”
	to reach agreement with the site owner, AXA, to maximise the number of jobs and to minimise the time for which land would be required. HS2 was directed by the Committee to work with the site owners to deliver that solution. That judgment was passed down in December. Although there have been detailed technical committee meetings and the site owners have now presented a detailed redesign of the site that would minimise land take, we have seen nothing of those discussions reflected in the provisions this afternoon.

Robert Goodwill: It is precisely on that point that I wish to intervene. As the Select Committee’s interim report recommended, we are working with the owners and Birmingham City Council on land take to see how far land can be returned for development as early as possible to secure that development that could result in jobs being created.

Liam Byrne: I am very grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but I urge him to go further in his winding-up remarks. It is of course important to me that land is minimised and jobs are maximised, but it will be of interest to all right hon. and hon. Members of this House that HS2 not only responds to the petitioners and the Committee but is seen to do so. Frankly, we have scant evidence of that in the provisions we have seen this afternoon.
	I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to endorse once again the Committee’s recommendations on the rolling stock maintenance yard. I hope he will urge HS2 to do the deal and come to an agreement with the site owner, AXA. I personally do not want to occupy the site in order to ensure that HS2 honours a recommendation from a Select Committee of this House. I hope the Minister will spare us all that spectacle and use his very good offices to ensure that HS2 will buckle down and listen to a Select Committee of this House and its recommendations.

Iain Stewart: I want to comment briefly on paragraph 1(c), which asks the Select Committee to consider providing Crossrail with sidings at Old Oak Common as a way of future-proofing a possible link between the Great Western main line and the west coast main line. Such a link would be a very important safeguarding measure for two principal reasons.
	First, in the long term, when HS2 is constructed and capacity is freed on the west coast main line for classic services, I very much hope that we will explore the
	possibility of extending Crossrail up the west coast main line, even as far as Milton Keynes to serve my constituents. That would be a very good enhancement of commuter services in and out of London.
	Secondly, and perhaps even more significantly, having the option of Crossrail going up the west coast main line during the HS2 construction phase, in particular while construction takes place at Euston when there will inevitably be some disruption to both inter-city and commuter services, could see the transfer of some commuter services from the west coast main line into London via the Great Western main line. That could provide relief during the construction phase and minimise disruption to my constituents and many others along the line. It is for that reason that I commend the motion, in particular paragraph 1(c). I hope the Select Committee will consider it in due course.

Andrew Slaughter: I support HS2 and the potential for jobs, homes and regeneration in the Old Oak Common area in my constituency. I even appreciate some of the difficulties that everyone, from the Minister down, has with this scheme—not least because Old Oak itself must be one of the most complex as well as the largest development sites in London, and possibly in the country. It involves not only HS2, but Crossrail, Overground, the Great Western main line and, of course, the commercial and residential developments. The Minister will anticipate a “but” coming here.
	The first I knew of some of these proposals was when I picked up the additional provision document yesterday, certainly in respect of the relocation of the Heathrow Express depot to Langley. That does not feature. Perhaps it is thought that it is more significant for my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), where it is going, rather than for me, from where it is being removed. Nevertheless, these are—as acknowledged by HS2 itself—significant changes. Indeed, I received an e-mail today from HS2, saying:
	“I understand there is a motion tabled for debate tomorrow on changes along the proposed HS2 route, including some substantial changes to the Old Oak Common area.”
	It went on to mention
	“three turnback sidings for the Crossrail service and passive provision for a West Coast Main Line Crossrail link”,
	which I shall return to in a moment. It referred to the need to acquire additional land
	“for the diversion of a sewer…for the construction of a temporary logistics tunnel…for…a construction compound…for…a conveyer route”,
	and, as an afterthought, to the relocation of the depot. There is a public meeting on Saturday, which I cannot attend, advertised to my constituents, but no mention is made of some of these changes taking place.
	It is right to say that some prior notice of the west coast main line-Crossrail link was given. HS2 was very clear to me that this was not an HS2 project, but a Crossrail project. Crossrail was very clear to me that it was not really part of the Crossrail scheme either. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, it is a temporary measure to deal with the construction phase. It must be the most expensive “diversion” ever in the history of the country. I am not quite sure exactly how many millions of pounds it is costing. It may be a
	nice adornment to the railway network, but nothing more than that. During the construction and when it is built, it is certainly going to cause very severe disruption.
	As I say, I do not object to the proposals, and I am sympathetic to the difficulties of the logistics of the task, but I do find that HS2 acts in a vacuum and often in a way that does not appear to take account of anything else going on around it—and that includes other railways. I am pleased to have one of the country’s major interchanges in my constituency, but the way things are going at the moment, it is going to be a dog’s breakfast of an interchange. I missed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough, but I suspect she asked why she was getting the depot rather than it being in Shepherd’s Bush. I suspect that the real answer—the Minister cites purely logistical reasons—is that it is better to put it somewhere where prices are probably a little cheaper than in Shepherd’s Bush.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Andrew Slaughter: I will give way to the Minister in a moment. There will be room for more of “Boris’s mini-Manhattans”, which is what we will be graced with: these sky-high blocks of flats—all of which are empty, all of which are sold overseas and all of which are safe deposit boxes for dirty money from abroad—that will loom over Wormwood Scrubs for the foreseeable future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the Minister needs to come in on this.

Robert Goodwill: I wish that that were the cheapest option. We considered a number of options including North Pole East, the Crossrail depot, Reading, Southall, Ealing and Langley. Langley was the best option, as all the others involved operational issues, but it was certainly not the cheapest .

Andrew Slaughter: I realise that the Minister is reading from his brief, and that he cannot be expected to know every single detail of all the immaculate plans that are in the document. However, those who are in the middle of this—and a very large part of my constituency is being developed: it is the largest development site in London—are genuinely worried. I plead with the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Government, and to appoint a tsar, a sultan or whatever the title of such a person might be, to oversee what is happening at Old Oak Common, because otherwise we shall end up with a terrible, terrible mess.

Cheryl Gillan: Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I do not see entirely eye to eye on this project. However, he may agree with me that it is time for the Department for Transport to sit down, have a look at the administration of HS2 Ltd, and come up with a proper communication strategy that keeps all of us informed, whether we are pro or anti. We need accurate and detailed information to be provided on a timely basis.

Andrew Slaughter: I agree with the right hon. Lady, who is assiduous in her pursuit of this issue. I think that, in time, HS2 Ltd may even thank her for that. There is nothing better than a well-informed critic to keep people on their toes. I am even sympathetic towards HS2 Ltd. I know that the Government are saying, “Make sure that
	you keep within budget and keep to time, because any further increase in the costs will not be sustainable.” However, HS2 must be clear about the fact that it is not just building a 21st-century railway, but engaging some of the major regeneration projects in the country. It needs to think about the potential for collateral damage, and I am not referring just to the obvious problems.
	Members have rightly objected, on behalf of their constituents, to the fact that the development is despoiling countryside, or causing noise or other pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) intervened on behalf of her constituents in Wells House Road and Midland Terrace, who are right up against it. I visited the area, which is in my old constituency, with other members of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend’s constituents will be surrounded on three sides by the development for 15 to 20 years, which is horrific, while on the fourth side the main road, Old Oak Common Lane, will be closed for a year or two. That does not bear thinking about, and I am afraid that it either has not been thought about, or has been thought about and then dismissed and put in the “too difficult” box.
	The issue that I raised in a short 80-minute speech in Westminster Hall at the end of last year, when I spoke about the effect on my constituency—particularly the environmental effect, and notably the effect on Wormwood Scrubs, a unique and very large piece of open land—has still not been addressed. I do not believe that the meetings that we were told would take place with amenity groups, environmental groups, residents’ groups and, indeed, transport groups have indeed taken place. I do not believe that the voice of local residents is being listened to. Those residents may be speaking in an entirely parochial way—quite properly—about their property or land and their need for adequate compensation, which we in the urban areas are certainly not receiving. They may be speaking for the wider public good and the environment, or coming up with innovative and better transport schemes. In any event, I plead with the Minister to go back to HS2 and say that it must take a more responsible attitude. It must balance its duty to build the railway, which I support, with its duty to the constituencies through which is passes.

Robert Goodwill: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The first point that I should make is that the motion is about the process. It is about kicking the ball into play, and it is for those who are directly affected, and the Select Committee, to carry out the game. Having said that, I should add that many Members on both sides of the House have made very effective points on behalf of their constituents and the interests of their particular areas.
	I want to make it clear that I will always be pleased to engage with colleagues around the House on these and future additional provisions. We are expecting to bring forward AP3, which will relate to Euston, before the end of the year. If Opposition Members have concerns, it might be easier to arrange visits to their constituencies through the pairing Whip, and I would be happy to do that if it is at all possible.
	The consultation period was mentioned. A period of 42 days is set out in Standing Orders, and I believe that that is appropriate. Looking back over the whole scheme, we have had about two years’ worth of consultations on one aspect of HS2 or another, so it would be hard to say that we have consulted too little. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) raised some important points. I should point out that, of the 20.8 kilometres in her constituency in the Chilterns, only 3.3 kilometres will not be in a tunnel. I am sure that is largely due to her doughty campaigning.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister knows that it is impossible to over-flatter a fellow politician. Let me make it clear, however, that 45% of this railway will be in a fully bored tunnel in my constituency, and that 55% will be in a green tunnel or in cuttings, which will be a scar on the landscape and will damage the area of outstanding natural beauty. This is a PR exercise too far. We want a whole tunnel.

Robert Goodwill: My right hon. Friend raises a point that I am well used to hearing, and I know that the Select Committee is in no doubt about the strength of her feelings and those of her constituents on this matter. I would remind her that one of the major political parties stood in the election on a Stop HS2 platform and that, despite that, her majority was increased. I am sure she would argue that that was due to the strength of her campaigning, rather than to the scheme itself. Two of the four changes in the additional provision that relate to her constituency have been made at the request of landowners. That shows that we are reacting to people’s very real concerns.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) asked about certain concerns in her constituency, and I will certainly write to her with full details, but many of them will be in the environmental statement. For example, the Berkswell greenway change extends the greenway to Berkswell station, which will benefit existing users.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) asked why information on the petitioning period was not included in the press notice. The petitioning process depends on the motion being passed today, and we would therefore have pre-empted the will of the House if we had announced that information in a press notice. She also mentioned the maps and the information on land take. That information will all be provided in the environmental statement that will accommodate the deposit if the motion passes.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) mentioned western rail access, which is important to the future connectivity of our country. I can reassure him that the depot at Langley is compatible with the western rail access to the Heathrow scheme.
	The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) raised the very real concerns of her constituents about the compensation arrangements. I should like to point out to her that the residents of Wells House Road are eligible for the need-to-sell scheme. Indeed, properties in that road that are in safeguarding can issue blight notices to have their properties purchased.
	As I have said, many of the points raised in the debate should be raised in petitions and through the process that is commencing today. I congratulate the Chairman
	of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on retaining that position unopposed. She and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) talked about the quality of the process. The process is about the people involved in it, and that means not only the members of the Select Committee that is considering the Bill but those involved with HS2—I know that they have had a bit of stick today, but by and large they are doing their best to address these problems—and the many people up and down the line of route who are being affected and who have engaged with the process in such a commendable way.

Liam Byrne: Do I take it, therefore, that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that HS2 will indeed honour the recommendations that the Committee hands down to it? If those commitments are not honoured, the integrity of the process will be called into serious question.

Robert Goodwill: Absolutely, and I think I have already given that assurance about land being released as soon as possible. If necessary, I will have a meeting with the right hon. Gentleman, with officials, so that we can get some assurances that, I hope, will satisfy him.
	I commend the motion to the House. The hybrid Bill process is working for people.

Fiona Mactaggart: In response to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Minister said that this scheme is fitting in with western rail access. As I understand it, however, the Hollow Hill Lane bridge was to have been raised in order to improve the problems with HGVs, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman discussed. As an alternative is being proposed, those issues will not be dealt with by this scheme unless it is changed. Can the Minister answer on that point?

Robert Goodwill: I would certainly be happy to meet those concerned to get my head around precisely how we could improve the scheme to address those concerns. It is not an issue I am absolutely on top of, and I apologise for that—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Robert Goodwill: But I am going to be put right by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Dominic Grieve: I assure the Minister that if he has a discussion with his officials, he will see that I have had correspondence with them about this issue. It does provide a real opportunity but, as I have suggested on previous occasions, it is going to need a bit of a push from his Department if it is going to be brought to fruition. What I certainly cannot accept is that this scheme goes ahead and leads to it becoming impossible to implement a relief road, as that would be a catastrophic state of affairs for my constituents.

Robert Goodwill: I absolutely understand that this scheme should neither confound some of our other rail plans on western access, nor confound plans for highways
	improvement. I am therefore more than happy to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to get my head around these issues in particular.
	The motion introduces changes to address issues that have been raised. It will put these proposals under the scrutiny of the Committee, and I am sure the House will be delighted to approve it.

Lilian Greenwood: Before the Minister finishes, will he clarify when he expects to introduce the additional provisions relating to Euston and when the Government expect to confirm the line of route for phase 2?

Robert Goodwill: We expect to bring forward provisions for Euston later this year. I am working actively with officials from HS2 to ensure that we are in a position to introduce a proposal that will address some of the problems, particularly the issues about continuing to use that station for the west coast main line at the same time as construction is taking place. I will certainly give the hon. Lady some more information on the other point she raises when appropriate.
	I commend the motion to the House and I hope the House will approve it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill is committed–
	(1) that the Select Committee have power to consider–
	(a) amendments relating to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed railway in the vicinity of the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal in the parishes of Fradley and Streethay, King’s Bromley and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
	(b) amendments conferring additional power to carry out works in the Borough of Slough and in the parish of Iver in the County of Buckinghamshire for the purpose of providing a new Heathrow Express depot in the Borough of Slough (to the north east of Langley railway station), in consequence of the displacement of the existing depot because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;
	(c) amendments conferring additional power to provide sidings for Crossrail services at Old Oak Common in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham that could be extended in the future to create a connection between the West Coast Main Line Railway and the Great Western Main Line;
	(d) amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in
	i. the London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing;
	ii. the parishes of Barton Hartshorn, Calvert Green, Chetwode, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, The Lee and Twyford in the County of Buckinghamshire;
	iii. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
	iv. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Chipping Warden and Edgcote, Greatworth, Radstone, Thorpe Mandeville and Whitfield in the County of Northamptonshire;
	v. the parishes of Burton Green, Coleshill, Curdworth, Kenilworth, Ladbroke, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Southam, Stoneleigh, Stoneton, Wishaw and Moxhull and Wormleighton in the County of Warwickshire;
	vi. the parishes of Armitage with Handsacre, Drayton Bassett, Hints with Canwell, King’s Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;
	vii. the parishes of Balsall, Berkswell, Chelmsley Wood and Hampton-in Arden in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull; and
	viii. the City of Birmingham;
	(e) amendments to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in:
	i. the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea;
	ii. the District of Three Rivers in the County of Hertfordshire;
	iii. the parishes of Chetwode, Denham, Ellesborough, Great Missenden, Grendon Underwood, Little Missenden, Preston Bissett, Quainton, Steeple Claydon, Stoke Mandeville, Turweston, Twyford and Wendover in the County of Buckinghamshire;
	iv. the parishes of Godington and Mixbury in the County of Oxfordshire;
	v. the parishes of Aston-le-Walls, Boddington, Greatworth, Marston St Lawrence, Radstone and Thorpe Mandeville in the County of Northamptonshire;
	vi. the parishes of Coleshill, Curdworth, Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Middleton, Offchurch, Radbourne and Stoneleigh in the County of Warwickshire;
	vii. the parishes of Colwich, Drayton Bassett, Fradley and Streethay, Hints with Canwell, King’s Bromley, Swinfen and Packington and Weeford in the County of Staffordshire;
	viii. the parishes of Berkswell and Bickenhill in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull;
	ix. the City of Birmingham;
	(f) amendments to the definition of “deposited statement” in clause 63(1) of the Bill to refer to supplementary environmental information provided in relation to matters which do not require an extension of the powers of the Bill to construct works or acquire land;
	(g) amendments for purposes connected with any of the matters mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (f);
	(2) that any petition against amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee is empowered to make shall be referred to the Select Committee if–
	(a) the petition is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the amendments was published, and
	(b) the petition is one in which the petitioners pray to be heard by themselves or through counsel or agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)

Therese Coffey: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to meet once a year in the Chamber of this House for the duration of this Parliament.
	The motion stands in my name, along with those of the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Scottish National party’s shadow Leader of the House.
	The United Kingdom Youth Parliament has now met in this Chamber annually since 2009, giving younger people an opportunity to debate motions, which have recently been decided upon by a national poll under the name, Make Your Mark. The number of votes cast in the Make Your Mark ballot increased from 478,632 in 2013 to 876,488 in 2014. Last year, that led to debates on exam resits, the living wage, careers advice and the voting age, as well as a commemoration of world war one.
	It is important that our young people learn a sense of respect and ownership of our democracy and its institutions, just as our democratic institutions need to respect them. Giving young people the chance to debate here in this Chamber is a great privilege, which I know they value. The motion would allow the UK Youth Parliament to meet annually for the length of this Parliament, and I commend it to the House.

Philip Davies: It is an absolute delight, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair. It is something that I support very warmly. I suppose that it is fitting that you are in the Chair for this debate, as this is a subject that you have always felt very strongly about, for which you have earned the thanks of many young people. I also appreciate how keen you were to get on to my speech, which is probably a first—it will probably be the last time as well.
	It is customary for me to speak in these debates on the sittings of the Youth Parliament. It is an unexpected pleasure for us to have the opportunity to debate this motion; earlier today, it appeared unlikely.
	It is important to set out the background to how we have ended up in this situation. As many hon. Members will know, I do not support this state of affairs. The use of our Parliament came about as a result of a promise made by the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to some young people at an event. He made an off-the-cuff promise that he would allow them to use the House of Commons Chamber for their annual sitting. It was a promise that he was in no position to make, as it was not his Chamber to give up. It was typical of him. He would say anything and do anything in order to curry favour with a few people so that he could get a few extra grubby votes.
	Gordon Brown made a promise that he could not deliver on, could not keep and was not his to make. Basically, he asked Parliament to dig him out of a hole that he had created for himself. As his party had a
	majority, it decided to pass what was called the “Spare Gordon Brown any embarrassment” motion, in order to allow the Youth Parliament to sit for one year only in this Chamber. It was appreciated that it was quite extraordinary and not really in order.
	Therefore, for one year only, we had the “Let’s dig Gordon Brown out of a hole” motion to allow the Youth Parliament to sit here. The House divided on the issue and the motion went through, because of the Labour majority at the time. But it was done on the clear understanding that it would be a one-off occasion. The reason why some of us are against this annual routine is that it brings inconsistency to our proceedings.
	I must say at the outset that I am a huge supporter of the Youth Parliament and the people who contribute to the debates. In fact, I have attended Youth Council debates in Bradford Council chamber. To be perfectly frank, the quality of the debate has often been higher than that which normally takes place there. I have attended the Youth Parliament debates in this Chamber as well, and know that no one could argue about the quality of the debate and the passion with which people spoke; no one has a problem with that. This is about not whether Members are in favour of, or against, the Youth Parliament, but whether it is appropriate for this Chamber to be used by other groups.
	As the former Prime Minister made a promise that he should not have done, he was dug out of a hole. What I do not understand is why it is only the Youth Parliament that can sit on these Benches like Members of Parliament. My fear is: if it is fine for the Youth Parliament to sit and use these Benches, why not other groups that want to meet and congregate and have a debate here? The Muslim Council of Britain may want to have a debate in the House of Commons Chamber. We have always had a rule that these Benches are only able to be used by MPs and that it is a great privilege to be here. When my constituents come and visit the House of Commons, there is a big sign up that specifically tells them that they are not allowed to sit on these Benches. They are told quite politely by the staff here that these Benches are for MPs only and that they are not allowed to sit on them. If Members of the Youth Parliament can sit on them, why can my constituents not sit on them?
	What is the difference? If the Muslim Council of Britain wants to use this Parliament, why can we say no to the Muslim Council of Britain but not to the Youth Parliament? On what basis is it right for one organisation to use it but not another? If one of the parish councils in my constituency decides that this Chamber would be a rather nice setting for its annual general meeting, why should it not be allowed to meet here, given that the Youth Parliament is? There is absolutely no logic or consistency to the current arrangement. Either we let other people use these Benches or we do not. My preference is that we do not, but I do not see why we should have one rule for everybody else and a separate rule for the Youth Parliament.

Tim Loughton: I am sorry that the debate started so quickly that I missed the beginning of my hon. Friend’s speech, but I probably heard it last year, the previous year and 10 years ago, because it is the same speech every time. The only thing that is different about all the groups that he has mentioned is that all of them are 18 and plus, and have
	the opportunity to vote. Those Members of the UK Youth Parliament who come here do not have the opportunity to vote or stand in elections. That is what makes them different, amongst many other things.

Philip Davies: If my hon. Friend is chastising me for being consistent, that is a chastisement I will take. I know it is a novel concept in politics to actually stick to your guns about something and believe in something and not change your opinion in response to the prevailing political wind. My hon. Friend may think it is a great thing to change one’s mind every five minutes, depending on the prevailing political mood. I rather think that being consistent is a virtue in politics, even if he disagrees.

Mark Tami: Should we not do everything we can to encourage more younger people to be interested in this place, and to prevent them from thinking of it as something distant that they should not be involved in?

Philip Davies: I am grateful for the interventions of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. We were told originally that the Youth Parliament was different because we needed to get more young people interested in politics. By definition, the Members of the Youth Parliament are already interested in politics and political issues and are taking the lead on these things. If we want to find a group of young people that are not already involved in the political process and inspire them to get involved, we should invite everybody other than the Youth Parliament to come and sit on these Benches, because presumably they are the ones we need to reach. Those in the Youth Parliament seem to be the last people we should invite to sit on these Benches if our reason for doing so is to get more people involved and interested in politics. So I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s arguments disintegrate straightaway.
	What we have here is the usual rather sad charade of middle-aged Members of Parliament trying to curry favour with the youth and with the young vote. They ask themselves, “How can we give youthful voters the impression that we are trendy?” Basically, one way is to advocate motherhood and apple-pie tripe like this. They think that by doing these sorts of things they will prove that they are in touch with the youth and are really trendy, and that young voters will all go out and vote for them. I do not think young people are as stupid as hon. Members seem to think they are—that just because they are allowed to sit here once a year, they will all go flooding in and vote for those Members when the election comes. Hope is triumphing over reality, and it does not make them look trendy at all.

Drew Hendry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to call out those people who are trying to court favour is to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds? Then they can make their own decision.

Philip Davies: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to test your patience by going off on a tangent about the merits of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I do not agree with giving them the vote; I make that clear. I do not want to dodge the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I may be right in saying that Madam Deputy Speaker probably would not tolerate a lengthy debate on that. I think we
	are really debating whether the Youth Parliament should sit in the Chamber, so I do not want to incur Madam Deputy Speaker’s wrath so early in her career as Madam Deputy Speaker. There will be plenty of other occasions when that happens.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to allow me to curry favour with youth, which I am always aiming to do. I just wonder whether he might be a convert to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, because on the argument we heard earlier, that would mean that they did not need to come here to have the Youth Parliament.

Philip Davies: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. However, the problem with his point is that that will indicate some kind of logic on the part of those people who so strongly advocate that the Youth Parliament should sit in this Chamber. He has probably missed out on its implication—that once 16 and 17-year-olds had the vote, and therefore that group of people did not need to sit in this Chamber for the Youth Parliament, a group of 14 and 15-year-olds would be exclusively invited to sit here because they did not have the vote, and they could sit here until enough weight built up behind their campaign to grant 14 and 15-year-olds the vote, and so on.
	I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his earlier intervention. His argument is that members of the Youth Parliament should be able to sit here because they cannot vote. My children are 12 and 10, so they cannot vote either. I will happily go along to my children’s school and suggest, following my hon. Friend’s logic, that they should be able to have their annual debating competition here. They are not allowed to vote and we want to encourage them to get involved in politics, so presumably my hon. Friend would be all in favour of that.

Tim Loughton: Of course, my hon. Friend is talking rubbish. The main thrust of my argument was that those young people are not entitled to stand for election, in contrast to the members of all the other bodies he trotted out in support of his argument.

Philip Davies: I am surprised that my hon. Friend thinks that regurgitating his argument is absolute rubbish. I was trying to make that point myself, in a spirit of compromise and consensus. He said in his latest intervention that Members of the Youth Parliament should be able to sit here because they cannot stand for election. My 12 and 10-year-old sons cannot stand for election, so presumably, following his logic, and given that we are trying to encourage more young people to get involved in politics, their school should be able to hold its annual debating competition here. Presumably that meets his criteria.

Drew Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is incredibly generous to let me intervene twice. Does he agree that if the public pay for a facility, they should get maximum access to it, and that we should be allowing people to use the public buildings they have paid for?

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I may not agree with him, but I admire his consistency. If I follow his argument correctly, he is suggesting that any group should be able to use the Chamber if they think that would be worthwhile—for example, a parish council holding its annual meeting. He argues that they paid for it, so they should be able to use it. I do not agree with him, but I admire his consistency. What I cannot understand is the argument that nobody should be able to use the Chamber because it is absolutely sacrosanct and only Members of Parliament who have been elected should have the right to sit on these Benches—apart from members of the Youth Parliament. There is absolutely no logic to it. At least the hon. Gentleman’s position is logical.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I was intrigued by the idea that people should be able to come here and debate if they are not allowed to stand for Parliament. Were that argument to be taken further, I wonder whether we would allow criminals to come here, or Members of the House of Lords.

Philip Davies: I do not want to go into the history of the expenses scandal, but many people would argue that criminals did sit on these Benches for a while, so I am not sure that my hon. Friend should push that particular line too hard, because that has already happened. My hon. Friend’s point is that we could have an annual prisoners’ outing to Parliament so that they could sample democracy and be inspired to engage in the political process once they leave prison. It is the same argument. I suspect that the problem with that argument, however, is that whereas those Members who are such strong supporters of the Youth Parliament sitting here think that they can get a few grubby votes by supporting it, they would probably think, even though the logic is the same, that allowing prisoners to sit here would probably not go down so well with their constituents. This is not about high principle at all; it is about people who are prepared to say anything and do anything to get a few cheap votes back in their constituencies at the next election. They think that the best way of doing that is to say, “I am all for the youth. I think that young people should be able to sit in the House of Commons Chamber.”
	But why just the Youth Parliament? That is what I want to know. What about all the other young people who would love to use these Benches to sample the atmosphere and further their political ambitions? Why are they excluded? Why are we being so exclusive? What is wrong with all the other young people out there whom we want to inspire?

George Kerevan: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in an approach to the Speaker to discuss broader access to this Chamber for other groups to iron out the anomaly he is talking about?

Philip Davies: I want to iron out the anomaly but in a rather different way from the hon. Gentleman, I fear. His way of dealing with the anomaly is to allow all and sundry to use the Chamber; my way is to stop the one group of people who are currently allowed to use it.
	We had the Youth Parliament taking part in debates in Parliament before they were allowed to use this Chamber. I think they used Westminster Hall on one
	occasion. They may even have used the House of Lords, and perhaps Committee Room 14. I am very supportive of that; I have no problem with it whatsoever. One of the arguments made for them moving out of the House of Lords and Westminster Hall was, “Well, they’ve already been there. They’re bored now—they want to go somewhere else.” In that case, why do they need to come and sit in here year in, year out? If they were so bored after just one sitting in the House of Lords, and they want to be on this sort of merry-go-round, they can find somewhere else to go. They must surely be bored with sitting in here by now. I am certainly bored with them sitting in here, and I am sure that they must be too, so let us relieve them of their boredom and let them find somewhere else.
	Given that we are having to decide whether we stay here in future years, we will probably end up in the ridiculous position of having the UK Youth Parliament still sitting in here while we have been kicked out. That is probably how politically correct we have got these days. No one will be prepared to tell them that they cannot sit in here any more. We will all be told that we have to move, but they will still be here once a year, every single year, using these facilities. Perhaps they could do us all a favour and go away to try to find somewhere else that we might be able to use ourselves when we might have to be removed. They could do a public service by going out over the next four or five years and looking at different locations to see how they work for these grand debates. That would be much more use than having them sit here.
	I do not intend to call a Division; I would not want to test the patience of my hon. Friends in that way. However, we should not just be nodding this through and saying it is absolutely fine for one group of people to be allowed to use these Benches every year without any thought. Let us have a proper rationale. My constituents are not allowed to sit on these Benches when they come to visit Parliament. I have not yet heard anybody argue that they should be; everyone is quite happy for that to continue. Why is this narrow group of people be treated—

Danny Kinahan: It has been fascinating listening to these speeches, but a convoluted argument is being made. Why can we not do one nice thing for the youth? They are very serious about coming here. It is a terrific honour to sit on these Benches, and it really shows that they are interested and encourages them from then on. We should make it a one-off. Let us not bother with any of the arguments and just let it happen.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman perfectly sums up the argument—let us just curry favour with a few young people. But why just this group of people? There is no logic to it whatsoever. Either one is allowed to sit on these Benches or one is not. He must accept that there is no logic to his position; it is just a load of motherhood and apple pie guff.
	I shall draw my remarks to a close because I do not wish to test the patience of my colleagues any further, but it is important to put on the record the fact that not everybody is happy with this. I am sure it will be agreed, and I genuinely hope that the people who come to speak on that day enjoy themselves and feel inspired to come to Parliament, but I do not accept that the only way a young person—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. Friend give way before he finishes?

Philip Davies: Because it is my hon. Friend, I will.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I thought I should assure him that he is not testing the patience of the House; the House is thoroughly enjoying his speech. He may not know that while he has been speaking the only people he has been inconveniencing are the Executive, because Back Benchers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are now on a one-line Whip.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me about the whipping advice. I shall seek him out more often. It may well pay dividends for everybody to know that I know the whipping arrangements.
	I do not think it is right to say that the only way we can inspire people to get involved in politics is to allow them to sit in here and have a debate. When I was first elected to Parliament in 2005, it was an absolute honour and privilege—[Interruption.] It absolutely still is a privilege, but to be able to sit on these Benches for the first time was an absolute privilege and an honour, and I thought it was very special.

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I would like to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Graham Jones: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could finish with this thought: did he canvass the young people of Shipley and ask them for their views before he came here to represent them in this debate?

Philip Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world does not bother with elections, but Shipley, in common with most other places, had an election a few weeks ago. It obviously bypassed the hon. Gentleman, who clearly does not have to worry about trifling matters like elections. What was put to the test in our election was whether I or somebody else should represent the people of Shipley in this House. I can report—I do not think I would be here otherwise—that 50% of the people of the Shipley constituency voted for me, and I am therefore exercising my democratic right to represent them.

Graham Jones: rose—

Philip Davies: Now that the hon. Gentleman has learned what elections are all about, I will give way to him again.

Graham Jones: My question was whether the hon. Gentleman had asked the young people in his constituency. The voting age is 18 and I would like it to be 16, but the hon. Gentleman voted against that.

Philip Davies: The young people of Shipley have different views on different issues. Has the hon. Gentleman canvassed the opinion of every 16-year-old in his constituency? I suspect not, because how would he identify every 16-year-old in his constituency in order
	to be able to canvass them? In fact, I suspect I probably canvass more people in Shipley than he has in his constituency over the years.

Graham Jones: For the record, I believe that my constituency is one of the most canvassed in the country.

Philip Davies: In which case, it is a shame the hon. Gentleman did not realise there was an election on which to canvass a few weeks ago. I am here to represent my constituents in Parliament. If they want someone else to represent them, they know exactly what they need to do at an election and I will always respect their decision.
	I thought it was a great privilege to sit here for the first time after I was elected and I do not want young people to feel blasé about the fact that they have already been here and say, “I don’t need to stand for Parliament, because I’ve already sat there—been there, seen it, done it.” It should be something that people who want to get involved in politics aspire to do: they should aspire to come to sit on these Benches and feel as proud as I did when I was first elected in 2005. I fear that this is gesture politics of the worst kind. It is motherhood and apple pie guff. I am opposed to it and I will always remain opposed to having an exemption for one single group.

Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is completely right to say that the quality of Youth Parliament debates in this Chamber continues to be exemplary. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) was also right to mention the inspiration given to the young people of the Youth Parliament by allowing them to come into this Chamber and debate.

Jim Shannon: I want to commend the member of the Youth Parliament for my constituency, Aaron Addidle, who attends Regent House school and has all the qualities of a potential MP or Member of the Legislative Assembly. He shows that today’s youth are interested. Sometimes people deride them, but today’s youth in my constituency have great qualities.

Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to commend that young person, and there are many similar young people up and down the land. School councils meet daily, weekly and monthly for debates and conversations. Indeed, I recently met the school councils of Lincoln Gardens and St Augustine Webster primary schools in my constituency. They are typical examples of what is going on.
	The Deputy Leader of the House made a good point when she drew attention to the way in which issues have been raised for debate in the Youth Parliament. There have been regional meetings of young people across the country to discuss a variety of issues, and those issues have eventually been brought here. It is right and proper that the debates happen here as the pinnacle of all those activities, and that is why I am happy to support the motion.

Tim Loughton: I did not think that we would be debating the motion this evening, so my apologies again for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	There is a sense of déjà vu all over again, because we have debated motions such as this several times in my 18 years in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has been entirely consistent in speaking against the motion and trotting out the same arguments every single time. I respect his consistency, but I absolutely take issue with the basis on which he has trotted out his view yet again. Indeed, I think it is patronising to young people. To hear comments such as he made may amuse us—it is good knockabout stuff—but there is a serious point. The young people who have made the commitment to put themselves in front of their peers and stand for election, just as he and I did a few weeks ago, have made a sacrifice, often at a very young age, and expect to be taken seriously. When they hear comments like his in this place, it can only serve to undermine their confidence. That is a great shame.
	I speak as an absolutely unswerving supporter of the UK Youth Parliament. I was the Children’s Minister responsible for the UKYP, and the Government rescued it when there was a financial problem with it some years ago. It was taken on by the British Youth Council, under whose tutelage it has flourished ever since. I have sat on these Benches along with 400 members of the UKYP in their November sittings, and you have addressed those sittings yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has always been a huge privilege, and we take great pride in what those young people do. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face, though, because when we come back on the Monday, Mr Speaker will remind us without fail how well behaved, well turned out, succinct and concise those young people were on the Friday, and how well they made their arguments. He inevitably says what a shame it is that the Members of Parliament assembled on the Monday cannot act and behave as well as them. They set quite an example.
	The UKYP is not some random cluster of young, enthusiastic people who have some interest in politics. It was set up by one of our colleagues, Andrew Rowe, the former Member for Mid Kent, back in about 2000 or 2001. Some years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, we granted it the use of this Chamber, which was recognition of just how important a body it had become.
	One of the key things that I wanted to push in my time as Minister responsible for children and young people, and which I continue to push, was the expansion of youth engagement in this country’s political process. Whether or not we believe in votes at 16 or 17, we have a looming crisis, because the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who vote in elections is derisory. In 2010, something like 43% or 44% voted, and early indications suggest that the figure fell in the general election that we have just been through. We have a crisis of engagement among young people who are already entitled to vote, so we should support anything that we can do to encourage bodies such as the UKYP, which can act as a good example of how young people can be engaged in politics and be taken seriously by people in positions of power.
	I would like the UKYP to have more powers in this place. You and I have talked, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the Youth Select Committee—I am proud to be one of those who set it up some years ago, and I was the first Minister to appear in front of it. It was the biggest grilling I have ever had in front of a Select Committee. I have appeared as a Minister in front of many Select Committees. None was better prepared, and not prepared to take rubbish for an answer and to be palmed off, than the Youth Select Committee, whose members really did their homework and produced an excellent report—in that case on transport for young people and, subsequently, on education for life and other subjects.
	The big issue with those young people—to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley—is that they are not random groups of young people; they have been elected. The turnout to elect UKYP members is rather impressive; in many parts of the country it is better than for Members of Parliament. Hundreds of thousands of young people have voted for members of the UK Youth Parliament and, locally, for youth councils, youth cabinets and, in some cases, the youth mayors that we have in different parts of the country.

Jim Shannon: Was the hon. Gentleman encouraged in his constituency, as I was in mine, by the young people who put their names forward for election and who were elected? The interest was phenomenal, and some of it spilled over into the elections to Westminster this year, when people voting for the first time introduced themselves to candidates. I am encouraged by that in my constituency. Is he encouraged by it in his?

Tim Loughton: I am hugely encouraged. It is a big ask, at the age of 13, 14 or 15, for someone to put their name forward, to stand up on a public stage in front of other young people and to strut their stuff—to put forward their manifesto and take questions. We take it for granted—we do it for a living; many of us have done it since we were anoraks in our teens—but doing it for the first time is a big ask. Coming to this place is hugely daunting. I have spoken to many young people, before they have come here and after they have spoken. What a huge privilege it is. They are not going to keep coming back and doing it every year; they get the opportunity only once to sit in this place. They will not have an opportunity again until they are over 18 and may then put themselves forward for public office, which they cannot do when they are under 18.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing we could do is ensure that we, here in this Chamber, have a debate about the issues that those young people have discussed? That would give a certain resilience to what they have been doing.

Tim Loughton: That is exactly the point I was coming to. Something that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have discussed—alas, you are not now in a position to advocate it so much, certainly from the Benches—is the report that the Youth Select Committee produces with the aid of resources in the House and the advice of hon. Members and House staff. The report receives a formal response from the Department responsible for that policy issue, and it should be automatically debated in this House. We should show that we take it seriously. Those
	people would take something like that much more seriously, and much better, than the patronising comments that a few dinosaurs—a very few—in this place still trot out every few years in this debate.
	I should like to see the role of the UKYP in this House extended. It is always a huge sadness and very frustrating—despite all the time and effort that goes into the meeting every year, as well as the summer sitting which I have been to for many years, where some very grown-up, intelligent debate takes place—to see how little coverage it gets in the media. Today’s proceedings will probably be reported in the press tomorrow. I am pretty sure that some of my hon. Friend’s bons mots will make it into some of the Commons sketches tomorrow, but very rarely do we read anything about the deliberations of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, even when they come to this Chamber, in the mother of Parliaments, to discuss their issues for the year and when they produce their Select Committee reports. That is a huge sadness, and we should do anything we can do to promote greater awareness among the public at large of the UKYP’s existence, making other young people more confident that it is something they should get involved in if they want to influence things in their community and nationally, and that Members of this Parliament are just as much there for everybody under 18 as they are for everybody over 18 who happens to be able to vote in their constituencies.
	I have an electorate of 74,500 in East Worthing and Shoreham, but I always talk about having a constituency of 91,000 because I am there for everybody under the age of 18, whether they are interested in politics or not.
	I am absolutely in favour of the motion. I always have been and I have always spoken on this subject.

Karl McCartney: My hon. Friend has denigrated some of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but one of the points that he has not covered is whether there are any other groups he feels would be as well behaved as the Youth Parliament that should also sit in this honourable Chamber?

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There was a lot of denigration going on from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, as well, although in good odour. The UKYP is unique. One reason is that it is a body of young people who are not yet able to stand for public office, which would entitle them to sit in this place as we do. I can also think of no other national body based on election with an electorate similar to that which elects us, but based on age. They represent constituencies, albeit rather wider constituencies —in west Sussex, we have four constituencies electing four Members of the Youth Parliament, and this Friday I will meet my local MYP, Stephen Gearing. We need to do something to inspire young people to get engaged in the political process and to feel that this place is not something out of their reach that they can never influence. They should not feel that MPs are not there for them and are in some other world; they are just as entitled to have access to us, to have us engage with them and to be taken seriously by us.
	I feel that we should extend the remit to allow the Youth Parliament to sit in this House once more. Over the past few years its Members have proved wrong all
	the scare stories that they would be hanging from the chandeliers or leaving chewing gum under the seats, and they treat this place with rather greater respect than some hon. Members who sit here day after day. They have earned the right to continue to sit in this House once a year and, more than that, I feel that they have earned the right to be taken rather more seriously, so their proceedings should become a matter for automatic debate by this House in future years.

David Winnick: I think that some age solidarity is needed when we talk about young people, and I shall come to that in a moment.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), not because I agree with a single word he said but because of his determination to put his point of view however much he is in the minority. One lesson he teaches us, which we should not forget, is that if someone has a consistent point of view—even though it might be totally wrong—they should put it in the House of Commons. In some respects, I consider the hon. Gentleman’s politics as nearing those of the 19th century and I can well imagine him opposing every reform that came before the House. If he had been a Member 100 years ago, no one would have been more steadfast in opposing votes for women, and I am sure that in the post-1945 era he would have voted against all the social reforms that we now accept. He spoke about middle-aged people and I must confess, though it might not appear so to hon. Members, that I am beyond middle age. My age group could certainly not be considered middle aged, although I was very pleased to be in this place when I was.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my hon. Friends have mentioned how well behaved the Members of the Youth Parliament are. I am not so concerned about good behaviour. They were hardly going to throw apples at each other and all the rest, but I happened to watch the parliamentary programme about their proceedings, which I knew was going to be on—I am not such an obsessive about being a parliamentarian that I want to watch parliamentary programmes over the weekend—and I was so impressed by the level of debate and the exchanges that took place that I am sure I watched it for one and a half hours or more. The hon. Gentleman and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), have made the point that it should be a matter of the utmost concern to us, as people involved in politics who want to see our democracy defended at all costs, that the number of people who vote in the 18-to-24 age category is small compared with other age groups. We must encourage such people to vote.
	I accept, of course, that having a Youth Parliament as such, and debating, will not necessarily increase voting. I have my own views on how voting should be increased, and I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in the closing stages of the last Parliament for a voting system more or less modelled on Australia, with an obligation to vote.
	On Members of the Youth Parliament coming here, I say to the hon. Member for Shipley that this is not a sacred place. When we are sitting here, we have our privileges, such as the right to debate and to ensure that
	no one interferes with our debates. That is when we are in session, but when we are not sitting, there is no reason on earth why this place should not be used by the Youth Parliament and perhaps other groups as well. I do not understand his view that in our absence, nothing should occur here and there should be no debates by other groups and the rest of it. I do not accept that view for one moment.
	When the matter first became before the House a few years ago, a number of Conservative Members opposed it—certainly no Labour or Liberal Democrat Members did. It is interesting that today, only the hon. Gentleman is opposing it. I have already praised him for putting forward his point of view, however much he appears to be in a minority of one. The fact that what was controversial a few years ago no longer is—it is more or less accepted—is an indication that people now recognise that the Youth Parliament has a role to play in this House.
	Incidentally, when I watched that parliamentary programme, one other thing impressed me: the Speaker of the House of Commons was in the Chair. It was not a Deputy Speaker—that is no reflection on any of the Deputy Speakers in the last Parliament, let alone in this Parliament—and it was impressive that the Speaker of the House of Commons chaired the whole sitting. Those who participated in the Youth Parliament also respected the fact that the Speaker took the matter seriously enough to be in the Chair all the time that the proceedings were taking place.
	I hope that the motion will be carried. I hope that not only this year, but in future years, the Youth Parliament will sit where we sit. It may well be that after 2020 we will be in a different place for a few years. Wherever that place may be, it will be the House of Commons, and the Youth Parliament is most welcome.
	My age is such that I, perhaps more than other Members, look around the Chamber and see Members of ages that are nowhere near my own. As someone who has reached their 80s, I want to make it absolutely clear that, as my colleagues have said, younger people should have the vote. That the people involved in the Youth Parliament are so interested to come here and to participate in political debate—hopefully some of them will become Members of Parliament and, even more hopefully, Labour Members of Parliament—is an encouragement to me.

Pete Wishart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. He is but a boy in this House, and it would be unthinkable for this Parliament to be without his presence in his traditional place.
	It is obviously a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I commend him for his work as children’s Minister and for his work with the Youth Parliament. He has been massive supporter of the UKYP and, like him, I hope to continue to see many more such meetings in the House of Commons.
	It is also the first time I have been able to address the House with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, so this is my opportunity to pay congratulations to you on your rightful assent. I served under you when you were the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, so it is a pleasure to serve under you as Madam Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.
	This debate would not happen in Scotland, because we are going to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who last week passed legislation to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in Scottish parliamentary elections. It is such a shame that probably in the same year as those young people go and vote in a Scottish parliamentary election, this House will deny them the opportunity to vote in the EU referendum.

Karl McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if 16 and 17-year-olds were given the vote, the Youth Parliament should not meet in this place?

Pete Wishart: If 16 and 17-year-olds were given the vote, it would not make sense for 16 and 17-year-olds to meet here as a sub-Parliament.
	I wish that the hon. Gentleman would take a cursory glance at the galvanising effect of involving young people in the democratic process. All of us on the SNP Benches are recipients of the engagement that we have seen in Scotland. Like all my hon. Friends, I visited most of my local schools during the referendum campaign. People would not believe the outlook that those young people had. Being questioned by 16-year-olds about “sterlingisation” and Barnett consequentials is something that I will never forget. That was a feature of the involvement of young people in the referendum campaign.
	We felt that it was important to continue that involvement for every election to come. Where we have jurisdictional responsibility, 16 and 17-year-olds will continue to have the vote. It is just such a shame that they will be deprived of the opportunity to participate in the EU referendum and in elections to this House, when they should have that opportunity.
	I am a signatory to the motion. I think that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in saying that we really enjoy the fact that the young people of the UK can come to this Parliament and participate in debate. Like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, I observed their proceedings in this House and saw their mature response, the effective and real debate that they had on a variety of issues, the way that they conducted themselves, and their sheer joy and pleasure at being in this House with Mr Speaker in the Chair, directing the debate. It is something that I am sure none of those young people will forget. Now that they have had that taste of democratic, electoral politics, I am sure that they will play a full part in the democratic process.

David Winnick: I am sure that Hansard will correct the hon. Gentleman, but my constituency is Walsall North.

Pete Wishart: I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting me right. How could I possibly get his constituency wrong? Of course he is the hon. Member for Walsall North, and a distinguished Member at that.
	I am very fond of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as he knows. I hope that he comes to Perth racecourse this year, where he and I can have a little flutter on the gee-gees at Scone Palace. However, I have heard him make the same speech again and again. When he started making it, he was dinosaur junior. Now, he is dinosaur senior, such is his elevated position among right-wing Conservative Members of Parliament. He is almost the sole and exclusive representative of one of the most dwindling clubs of Conservative Members
	of Parliament. It is heartening to see him in a minority of one in addressing the House on this issue because he is totally wrong.
	This place should be opened up to young people. This is a fantastic opportunity for them to come to the House of Commons and participate in its debates and proceedings. I hope that, in years to come, we will continue to open our doors to the young people of the United Kingdom.

Heidi Alexander: It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first contribution that I have made with you in the Chair and it is good to see you there.
	I am not somebody who talks in this place for the sake of talking, but I feel motivated to participate in this debate because it is on an important issue that goes to the heart of our democracy and its future. I hope that I do not cause offence to anyone but, having looked around the Chamber, I think that I might be the youngest Member here. It is a sad state of affairs when the youngest Member in the Chamber is someone with quite as much grey hair as I have and someone who has very recently celebrated their 40th birthday.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), and the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for their excellent contributions. I agree with all they said.
	I put on record my full support for the UK Youth Parliament using the Chamber. I find it utterly remarkable that we are having this debate at all. The fact that we repeat this debate almost yearly will seem anathema to many of my constituents. It is a no-brainer that the UK Youth Parliament can use the Chamber. It has my full support in doing so.
	It is important that hon. Members remember just how remote we are to many people. I hope I will not cause offence, but when people look around the Chamber today, they could be forgiven for thinking that it is quite male and pale, and some people would say it is quite stale. The same could not be said when people watch debates of the UK Youth Parliament and the people who sit on these Benches. We have had some excellent Members of the Youth Parliament from Lewisham. The current Member, Saffron Worrell, was out campaigning during the general election. They bring great energy to this place. Long may it continue.
	It is a crying shame that, when I have work experience students visit the House of Commons and sit in the Public Gallery, often, one of the first things they say to me is, “Do you have to be posh to be an MP?” Lots of people watch the debates in this Chamber and think that it is an episode of “Downton Abbey”. We have to change that. Making the Chamber accessible to young people is one way we can do so.
	I do not want to detain the House. I just wanted to put on record my strong support for the UK Youth Parliament using the Chamber.

Therese Coffey: It is a pleasure to reply to the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for East Worthing and
	Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for their speeches. I also thank for their contributions the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the youngest person in the Chamber, although, as we know, not the youngest Member of Parliament elected in 2015.
	All I can say to the Scottish National party Members is that, to some extent, they have been treated to a bit of a taster, if not a short masterclass, of Friday sittings. Five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke for 77 minutes, but today he spoke for only 24 minutes. In that regard, this has been a shorter debate. Nevertheless, he has shown consistency and, I would say, intellectual rigour. It pains me to think that I might be supporting a dig-Gordon-Brown-out-of-a-hole motion, but that is not the case today. Just as the House did five years ago, we are giving permission to another group of special young people to participate in a debate in the Chamber.
	The point about other groups has been made. I am not aware of any other groups that have asked to use the Chamber. It would be for them to approach the House and for the House to decide, but I recognise that the House has, on the previous two occasions it has debated this matter, endorsed having the Youth Parliament sit in the Chamber.
	I was intrigued by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He spoke passionately about the UK Youth Parliament and behaviour. I am sure Mr Speaker will be looking to him to be a role model to colleagues during Prime Minister’s questions for the next five years.
	I want to say something that might jar. It is not strictly accurate to say that Members of the UK Youth Parliament could not be elected to the House, which addresses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney) made. The UK Youth Parliament is open to anybody from age 11 to 18 and their term lasts for two years, so we could technically just about have a 20-year-old being a Member of the Youth Parliament, which, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Ms Black) proved, is young enough to be elected. Nevertheless, I recognise that the majority of Members of the Youth Parliament are under 18.
	I was taken by the comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who is no longer in his place—he is probably off answering his trendy ringtone. He extended across the Chamber the branch of friendship to look at this particular situation, but I come back to the fact that it is a special occasion for the Members of the Youth Parliament. The hon. Member for Lewisham East was perhaps the first hon. Member in the debate to refer to a Member of the Youth Parliament. Five years ago, lots of Liberal Democrats did the sycophantic thing of naming every one they could. I had a Deputy Member of the Youth Parliament campaigning for me in the general election. It was good to see people getting involved in the campaign.
	I hope that the House, having had a wide-ranging debate, endorses the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to meet once a year in the Chamber of this House for the duration of this Parliament.

BUTEC FACILITY (NORTH-WEST SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(George Hollingbery.)

Ian Blackford: I congratulate you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair. I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue. I have heard many hon. Members in the past couple of days asking, what is BUTEC? It is the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre, which is operated by QinetiQ on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
	BUTEC operates facilities at Kyle of Lochalsh, the Island of Rona and Applecross, with testing taking place off Rona and in the Inner Sound between the Island of Raasay and the mainland at Applecross. The area off Rona will, from time to time, be closed to local fishing interests, with an area off Raasay being permanently closed—the so-called no take zone. When there is no activity off Rona, creels can be placed there. The fishermen are compensated when the area is closed and the creels have to be moved.
	On 23 February, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, now the Minister for Defence Procurement, informed this House that there was to be a £22 million investment at QinetiQ. We do not know the details of that investment, but among other things the Rona facility will be closed and there will be a net loss of jobs. Perhaps the Minister could detail what the planned investment will actually result in as far as jobs are concerned. There has been considerable local coverage of the plans, including the publication of a map. I have the map with me and it shows at least a doubling of the exclusion zone for fishing, right up to the shore line at Applecross.
	To a large extent, the interests of BUTEC and the local fishing community co-exist, or can be more accurately said to have co-existed up until that proposal was announced. There are legitimate concerns that the proposed expansion of BUTEC offers a real threat to the local fishing industry. My first question is: why could we not have the same circumstances that exist off Rona, where fishing is allowed when there is no activity? The same should apply to any extended area. I also want to ask why this is being proposed now. Is it, for example, to do with the existing Trident fleet, or is it, as some expect, to do with a future replacement of the Trident fleet, something that we on the Scottish National party Benches would resolutely oppose?
	Since February, very little has been stated publicly. We were promised a public consultation, which was initially suggested for April and then conveniently moved until after the general election and put off until June. I now understand that it has been put back to late summer. That is simply not good enough, particularly in the light of what is happening at Applecross. People in my constituency deserve to know what is going on and the nature of the threat to employment in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
	On 29 May, one of our local papers, the West Highland Free Press, stated that a Ministry of Defence spokesman had said that no work had started on the expansion. However, the “Applecrosslife” blog of 6 June tells a different story:
	“The ‘investment’ on the shore side of the Range expansion has already begun which leads me to think that the upcoming consultation may be little more than a paper exercise. No one is going to tell me that everything is not in place and that this is not going to stop if a few fishermen complain their livelihoods are going to be adversely affected.”
	There is also photographic evidence on the blog of ongoing work. My questions are as follows: when will the consultation exercise start? Why has the consultation process not started? Who is responsible for commencing the construction activity? When the consultation starts, why should we believe that it will be meaningful if the construction work is already under way? Why is there a proposal to take the exclusion zone right up to the shoreline? Why are the expansion plans necessary? Let me also ask: who will be responsible for the consultation exercise? Who will conduct it and who will be consulted?
	Why is this important? I welcome the jobs associated with the range. However, we understand from what has appeared in the press that, with the ending of the Rona capabilities, there will be a net reduction in jobs. I want to speak up for the work force at QinetiQ, and in doing so, I ask that the company restore union recognition for the work force and allow them to be properly represented on this and on other matters.
	I turn to the implications for the fishing industry. Particularly active in this area is the Mallaig & North West Fishermen’s Association. The association was formed to promote the idea of responsible fishing within the Inner Sound between Raasay and the Scottish mainland, with the intention of maintaining the viability not only of the available stocks of fish and shellfish, but of the diverse fishing communities situated on the fringes of the area. The association fully understands the role played by the fishing industry in keeping these communities alive.
	The area has a reputation for producing high-quality prawns, which are eagerly sought by shellfish buyers for the export markets in mainland Europe. The membership of the association currently numbers some 70 vessels and 120 owners and crewmen. The reports of an expansion of the BUTEC range caused considerable disquiet among the membership, and a number of meetings have been held to discuss the issue. The current situation whereby fishing activity has been banned in a swathe of the Inner Sound was accepted by the association—but with some reservations.
	The area currently used by QinetiQ consists mainly of deep water—100 fathoms, or 600 feet, where the BUTEC activities are carried out. Over the years, the fishermen have learned to operate outwith this area, to rotate their activities to suit the available stocks in each location and to maintain and preserve their integrity while allowing themselves to make a living and retain the viability of the communities they live in.
	The fishing industry supports not only the livelihood of the 120 people directly employed within it, but a large—and some would say equal—number of jobs associated with it. That is some 240 families in the area whose main wage earner is dependent on this industry. As I have stated, 70 boats will be affected by the proposals with a larger knock-on effect across many communities. What sustainability studies have been carried out on the issue?
	The current system of rotating fishing activities to suit the available stocks would be severely hampered should any further areas be declared “no fishing zones”.
	It is simple mathematics: 70 vessels concentrated into a much smaller area would catch the available stocks faster. That would lead to overfishing of the area and removal of too many shellfish to allow natural regeneration of the stock. The result would be a collapse of those stocks and the end of the local industry.
	There is the issue of the threat to employment in the fishing industry and at BUTEC. The current proposals will see 13 jobs at the Rona listening station at the north end of Raasay being surplus to requirements. Those jobs do not appear to be being replaced by civilian staff at the new facility being mooted under the extension scheme. If the extension is allowed, it is a certainty that those 13 jobs will be lost.
	The loss of fishing grounds will no doubt force a number of fishermen to leave the industry at the very least. That will have a knock-on effect in the local communities and the whole downward spiral of depopulation will be exacerbated, leading to further local decline. These communities operate within a finely-tuned mechanism of co-dependence. Loss of a part of one commercial area impacts upon all the others; the local economies are intertwined, with the long-term viability of the area depending on that relationship. If one aspect of the local economy declines, the revenue declines elsewhere. The communities are indeed living on the edge. The loss of fishing industry jobs will mean families without any secure full-time employment being forced to leave. The ripples of that departure will resonate throughout the entire community, affecting other local businesses, schools and myriad other institutions.
	It is not known how many civilians are directly dependent on the BUTEC facility. That information is apparently “classified”, but it can be safely assumed that the number does not come close to the numbers directly or indirectly connected with the local fishing industry. As a result of the range extension, the local area could lose a considerable number of full-time, year-round jobs, which would devastate the area and lead to irreversible decline.
	This proposal comes at the same time as further revelations concerning the safety aspects of the UK nuclear fleet and the Trident programme. When new safety allegations are added to the well-documented grounding of a nuclear-powered submarine in the area in recent years, the general disquiet that is felt about the possibility of another accident must be considered. It would take only one mistake to devastate the entire area.
	Questions are rightly being asked about why the new area is being considered for the BUTEC programme. The waters there are relatively shallow in comparison with those in the current restricted zone. It is one thing for nuclear-powered submarines to operate in depths of 100 fathoms, but it is an entirely different matter for those same vessels to operate in much shallower waters.
	Those who are familiar with the history of the area will know that there used to be crofting communities all the way along the Applecross peninsula. They were hampered by very poor communications with the outside world, and for decades they fought to have their only means of access, a simple track, upgraded to a road. One by one, those crofting townships were emptied of
	their people as they sought a better life elsewhere, frustrated by the lack of support from the Government. By the 1960s, they were gone. What happened then? The Ministry of Defence went into the peninsula and a road was built, but it was built too late to save the communities that had existed in Applecross for hundreds of years.
	In one way or another, people were cleared from Applecross—cleared from the land. I do not wish to see our people today cleared from the fishing grounds: history must not be repeated. I urge the Minister to engage in early consultation and, crucially, to recognise that we must respect the interests of the local fishing community, as well as the interests of the MOD and BUTEC.

Brendan O'Hara: Let me begin by joining all the other Members who have congratulated you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for allowing me to take some of his allotted time. In doing so, he recognised that this issue is important not just for his constituency but for Scotland more widely. It goes to the heart of the question of the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and local communities, particularly Scotland’s rural communities.
	As my hon. Friend said, there is no doubt that work on the extension of the BUTEC range has already started, although, as recently as last month, the West Highland Free Press said that the official MOD position was that no such work had begun. The evidence is plain: anyone passing Sands Beach and looking down will see that major and extensive trench digging is already taking place—and why, if no major construction is taking place, are the Applecross guest houses full of construction worker? Some are booked up four months in advance. That is the crux of the matter: it is about engagement and respect between the Ministry of Defence and local communities.
	Will the Minister please tell us what level of consultation has been entered into by the MOD with the local population about the range extension, and about the serious effects that it will have on fishermen and associated businesses? Like my hon. Friend, I understand that a public consultation was due to start in April, but it did not. Then it was due to start in June, but that has not happened either. Now there is a vague promise that it will take place some time before the end of the summer. What is the truth? When will that public consultation take place? Indeed, will it ever take place? It now appears that the first part of the extension will be completed before there has been any consultation with the local community. Will the Minister confirm this evening that there will be a consultation process, and will he tell the House when it will take place?
	In accepting that the construction work is well under way despite a lack of any public consultation, will the Minister tell us what procedures the MOD believes it has to follow in order to proceed with the major part of the construction work? I ask that question because I am unaware of any planning application having been made, or of an environmental impact assessment having been carried out. As I understand it, when the Ministry
	sought to extend the buildings at Faslane, it used the conventional planning process. Is it the Ministry’s intention to use that process to extend the work at BUTEC?
	Will the Minister tell us whether an application has been made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997? Does the work even require such planning permission? If not, what mechanisms are being put in place to facilitate scrutiny and consideration by the public, by the local authority and by the Scottish Government? My fear is that the development will be buried deep within the confines of a general permitted development of an unspecified nature, or that the Secretary of State will use the powers granted to him under the antiquated and anachronistic Military Lands Act 1892 and its associated byelaws to avoid any public scrutiny or consultation. Unfortunately, the MOD stands accused once again of a lack of public engagement, of secrecy and of obfuscation. I urge the Minister not to hide behind the Military Lands Act, and to ensure instead that public consultation and transparency are the hallmark of his actions.
	We are forced to conclude that the Ministry of Defence is once again spending hundreds of millions of pounds of the public’s money yet is unwilling to be held up to public scrutiny. We strongly suspect that the reason this whole project is shrouded in such secrecy is that the MOD is spending this money by stealth to extend the BUTEC range in preparation for the arrival of Trident. How can the Minister explain that, when this place has yet to debate, let alone agree, Trident’s renewal?
	When will the Ministry consult the people whose lives are going to be affected by the extension of the range? What safeguards are being put in place to prevent any disturbance to the local environment, to the public and to marine life as a result of the extension? And when will the MOD come clean with the people of Applecross and wider Scotland about what is actually happening at BUTEC and admit that this is further below-the-line spending based on Trident’s renewal before this House has debated or agreed to such an undertaking?

Philip Dunne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to you on your election. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. When we first arrived in Parliament in 2005, we served together on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, and I have fond memories of the agreement that we reached on many matters despite coming from opposite sides of the Chamber. This is a great pleasure.
	I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not only on securing this important debate for his constituents but on his presence in the Chamber tonight having won his seat in Parliament. I have listened carefully to what he and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) have said, and I shall seek to address the points that they have raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for alerting me to the fact that he was going to contribute to the debate.
	Before I address those points, it might be helpful if I explain our plans for the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre—widely known as BUTEC—and
	other associated facilities. BUTEC is currently located on two sites in the Inner Raasay Sound: a control centre on the Applecross peninsula and the site support base at Kyle of Lochalsh. Together with a third site, the underwater acoustic signature range operated from the Island of Rona, these are collectively known as the Raasay ranges. All three facilities are operated on behalf of the MOD by QinetiQ under the terms of a long-term partnering agreement. The LTPA is a 25-year contract, effective from 2003, worth about £5.6 billion over the life of the contract for the delivery of test, evaluation and specialised training support services. That partnering arrangement delivers an efficient and affordable service that provides access to QinetiQ’s test and evaluation capabilities and expertise, while sustaining investment in new technology and facilities.
	I would like to make it absolutely clear that there remains an enduring defence requirement for the capabilities provided by the Raasay ranges. Important work that could not easily be undertaken elsewhere is carried out there to support UK defence, including the measurement of acoustic, electromagnetic and radar signatures of naval platforms, and the testing of some maritime conventional weapons systems. As with all Departments, the MOD must continually strive to deliver capability efficiently. I am proud to have been part of the team helping to deliver more than £5 billion of cost savings since 2010. All areas of defence are regularly examined to ensure that we can deliver our required capabilities at best value to the taxpayer.
	As part of our work on potential cost reductions, QinetiQ developed a proposal, at the request of the Department, to optimise and sustain the Raasay ranges. This proposal would see the closure of the Rona facility and the relocation of in-water acoustic measuring equipment to the BUTEC water space, as well as technical enhancements at the Applecross and Kyle of Lochalsh sites. This will result in a significant modernisation of the range architecture. The enhancements would mean long-term investment of approximately £22 million in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, although much of the investment will be made under water. This is expected to deliver some £1 million of annual operating cost savings until 2028, when the current agreement with QinetiQ expires.
	As part of this reorganisation, up to 13 posts currently based at the remote Rona facility will be lost. Those posts are manned by personnel who operate in a similar way to workers on offshore oil rigs. In other words, they are not locally housed individuals—they often come from the central belt in Scotland—and therefore have no immediate impact on the local economy because they do not have the opportunity to spend their wages locally. That is because there are no facilities there, other than their own facility and a local household living on the Rona Island. It is hoped that as many of these reductions as possible will be achieved through voluntary means.
	It is important to set this in context. Aside from those job reductions, the proposed enhancements will be very good news for the remaining employees of QinetiQ, about 80 of whom work at Applecross and the Kyle of Lochalsh. I understand that QinetiQ is the second largest employer, after the local authority, in that area, so it is a significant employer in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Brendan O'Hara: May I get clarification on something? The Minister said that this would lead to £1 million of savings for the MOD, but the knock-on effect to the local economy will be that the fishing boats will be cleared out of the new extended range. There will therefore be a devastating effect on the local economy while the MOD is saving £1 million per annum.

Philip Dunne: I shall come on to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the impact on the fishing industry, because that is the thrust of the argument being made by Scottish National party Members. In short, that vision is not shared by the MOD, and I will come on to explain why. We believe that this investment will sustain the activity in Applecross and the Kyle of Lochalsh, and in the Inner Sound, which will have an enduring future in terms of maintaining economic prosperity in the area.
	Relocating the in-water acoustic measurement equipment away from Rona will mean extending the current Ministry of Defence byelaws for the BUTEC protected water space by some 28 sq km. The current byelaw covers 82 sq km, which is currently divided into two areas. The first is an outer area of approximately 56 sq km, which prohibits the fishing by any method involving the use of a net or dredge. There is also an inner area of around 26 sq km within which all fishing, whether by line, net, trawl or creel, as well as the anchoring of vessels, dredging and dumping of rubbish are prohibited.
	Under the proposed changes for the BUTEC water space, there would be a single water space provided for all range activities covering an area of approximately 110 sq km. This relatively modest increase in water area would be offset by removing the fishing restrictions currently in place in the area of water around the Island of Rona.
	Let me assure the hon. Gentlemen that the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its obligations to ensure the continued and sustainable use of waters that are used for defence purposes by other users. We already work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with Marine Scotland to establish a sound informal consultation process in respect of the national marine plan development.
	As part of the work to implement QinetiQ’s proposal for BUTEC, it will be necessary to revise the current byelaws. Part of that revision process involves the need for public consultation. It is intended that this formal public consultation will commence later this summer as part of a separate strand of work to review all current byelaws at some 200 defence sites. The consultation is in relation to byelaws, the timing of which is not determined solely by this site. It is affected by proposals across a range of defence sites, not exclusively in Scotland—most of them are in fact outside Scotland.

Ian Blackford: I am interested to hear what the Minister is saying. The reason there is so much concern is that some of the information that came from QinetiQ, which ended up in the public domain, referred to a much larger exclusion zone than he is expressing in his statement today. The map, which I am sure the Minister has seen, indicates a potential doubling of the area. I wish to hear some clarification on what was talked about. The information that was in the public domain is therefore
	not correct. My constituents and I would welcome an early consultation on that and to hear what it means for the fishing community.

Philip Dunne: My understanding is that QinetiQ enjoys a close and co-operative relationship with local fishermen and their representatives. Although it may not have engaged in a direct consultation in relation to the impact on fishing, it is absolutely our intention to do so, and I will come on to that in a moment. I cannot comment on what material may have appeared in the public domain by sources outside the Ministry of Defence, but I hope that I have given some reassurance already that the extension of the area that we are talking about is relatively modest, and not at the kind of dramatic level that the hon. Gentleman seems to think is likely to be the case.
	The Ministry of Defence has a presumption in favour of public access wherever this is compatible with operational and military training uses, public safety, security, conservation and the interests of tenants. It is, therefore, important that the views of local communities are taken into account when we propose any changes to occupation or use of shared space.
	To assist with the BUTEC public consultation, we will place notices in the local press that the draft byelaws will be made available on the Ministry of Defence website and copies will also be available in local libraries and other municipal buildings, providing the opportunity for anyone wishing to express their views to be able to do so.
	I point out gently to the hon. Gentlemen that Members of the Scottish Parliament were notified by me in writing in February that this exercise would be undertaken in the summer. There was no suggestion in my correspondence with the local authority, the then existing Members of Parliament, or Members of the Scottish Parliament that there would be a consultation beginning any time before the summer. I am not aware that there was any suggestion that there would be a consultation starting in April coming out of the MOD, so I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has got that suggestion from.
	I would further like to make it clear to the Opposition Members present that all the views expressed by those taking part will be considered fully as part of the decision-making process, which will also require appropriate ministerial approval, ultimately, by me, and that will include consultation with fishermen. The suggestion that this has all been agreed in advance is not the case. Proposals have been made by QinetiQ. They will be consulted upon. We will consider the responses to that consultation and then we will make a decision.

Ian Blackford: If that is the case, why is it that construction activity seems to have started?

Philip Dunne: I will come on to that in a moment.
	I recognise that the people who are most likely to be affected by the BUTEC plans will be those whose livelihoods depend on fishing the waters of the Inner Sound, which is the concern that has been particularly expressed in this debate. Naturally, they have legitimate concerns about how our plans will be implemented and how this might affect them in the long term, so we completely recognise that it would be wrong simply to
	ignore their views. For that reason, and in parallel to the byelaw consultation, I want to ensure that full and proper discussions are held with representatives of the local fishing communities, which we will start shortly, in advance of the byelaw consultation. The aim of these talks will be to investigate what options might be available that would allow some fishing to take place at certain times within the revised water space—much as happens at present in part of the area other than that which is completely prohibited, which the fishing communities are well accustomed to. Of course, this work will have to be balanced with the Ministry of Defence’s need to protect its investments and to ensure the continued operation of this vital defence capability.
	As I mentioned, I wrote to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, the well respected and late lamented Charles Kennedy, and met him shortly before the general election, to explain what was envisaged, the process of consultation, and that no final decisions had been taken, contrary to local press reports. I also wrote to Members of the Scottish Parliament and local authority leaders, and I look forward to developing a similarly constructive relationship with the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
	There is work to be completed before any final decisions are made, which on current plans is expected around the end of the year. Full implementation of the changes is due to be completed during 2017.
	In relation to the construction that has started already, most of this investment will be in looking at sensors under the water. There is a modest amount of investment in the existing facilities to upgrade some of the physical capacity onshore. Where that does not require planning consent, that work can continue in any event and is already starting. That is part of the £22 million investment. Some elements require consultation; respect for local planning regulations, if any, is necessary, and consultation with statutory consultees such as Marine Scotland. Of course that work cannot be done until that process has been completed, but initial preparatory work can be undertaken. It is nothing to alarm hon. Members, as though that was prejudging that consultation. Much of this work needs to be done routinely as part of a 25-year contract. You would not expect there to be no improvements during the course of a contract as long as that.
	I shall try to allay some of the fears of the hon. Gentleman, who represented an apocalyptic vision of the impact of these proposals on fishermen. I have seen nothing to suggest that that vision is remotely applicable to what we are proposing here. We are actively keen to engage with fishermen who, in particular, undertake creel fishing for prawn and other crustaceans in the sound. There is an established relationship with QinetiQ and a channel for communication to allow that to happen when there is no testing going on. There is no reason to suggest that that would change. There might be specific areas of the sound where we will be looking to extend the prohibition, but they are relatively modest, and certainly nothing like the scale that the hon. Gentleman suggested, which might lead to the devastation of the industry to which he referred.

Ian Blackford: I look forward to the consultation exercise, and I will be satisfied if what the hon. Gentleman has laid out turns out to be the case. Hopefully he
	understands why there are legitimate concerns. The information that came into the public domain from QinetiQ paints a very different picture from the one that he has put forward today; it suggests a much larger expansion in the area. Therefore, one can understand why people in my community are concerned when they see construction activity starting. If that is in any way related to the expansion plans, would it not be more respectful to the local community if that did not happen until after the consultation exercise?

Philip Dunne: All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I think it behoves him to act responsibly as a Member of Parliament and not to foment his constituents into getting overexcited about something until he is well informed about the situation. We all have to deal with contentious issues in our constituencies, and having been a Member of Parliament for 10 years, I think that it is always better to adopt an informed position before reaching for the panic button. Therefore, I hope that this debate has helped reassure the hon. Gentleman on how we propose to conduct ourselves and the extent of the consultation we are looking to undertake, because we will take into account the legitimate views of his constituents who might be inadvertently affected.
	I would like to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked who will be responsible for the consultation. The byelaw consultation will be undertaken by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s byelaw review team. The consultation with the fishermen will be undertaken primarily by QinetiQ, as it has the direct relationship with them. He asked whether the depth of the water would have an impact on what we are proposing, and the answer is no; the extension of the range would be in water of a similar depth, rather than shallower water. He asked whether we have any expectations of an adverse impact on the fishing community, which I think I have already addressed. The answer is that we do not think so, but we are keen to explore any concerns there might be.
	On the question asked by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), I do not think that there is a question of undue secrecy by the MOD. As I have said, we have been very clear with his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament about what we are seeking to undertake, and we will do a consultation. However, we will maintain secrecy over the precise nature of some of the equipment and the capability it delivers, because that has a clear defence purpose. I do not think that he would expect us to be as transparent about that.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute also raised in a traditional way his concerns about whether this might be some underhand way of encouraging Trident renewal. I do not think that is a relevant concern here. This is about providing capability that is used for a wide variety of submarine testing, including the strategic deterrent, but it is by no means exclusively in relation to it.

Brendan O'Hara: Can I be absolutely clear that the extension of the range has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed renewal of Trident? I find it difficult to comprehend that such an investment would be made in an underwater submarine test facility when the Government are clearly on record as supporting Trident renewal. Is this not just under-the-line spending,
	by which we have seen billions spent preparing for Trident renewal before this House has had a chance to debate it?

Philip Dunne: As I tried to make clear at the outset, this is about improving the efficiency of the facilities that exist at the moment in the Inner Sound. We are, in essence, taking two separate locations under the water and combining them into one. The functionality of what happens under the water is being improved because of technological advances. This has to do with seeking to upgrade the existing facilities to make them fit for purpose for the future; it has no specific relationship to the strategic deterrent.
	I think I have sought to address all the points that hon. Members have raised. I hope that the House will understand why the changes I have outlined for the BUTEC water space are required. Put simply, they are key to sustaining the continuing operation of this vital facility, which happens to be one of the largest employers in that part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I hope that he will come to recognise that this is something that he should support.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.